Kass v. County of Alameda

Background

Matthew Kass brought a claim under Section 1983, a federal civil-rights law, alleging excessive force by Alameda County Sheriff Deputies Ella and Holland. The opinion states that claims against other defendants, including Alameda County, had been dismissed. The case was scheduled for a jury trial beginning December 6, 2021.

The defendants filed motion in limine No. 4 to limit or exclude testimony from Kass’s police-practices expert, Roger Clark. A motion in limine asks the court to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be presented to the jury. The defendants relied on Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards for expert evidence from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael.

Expert testimony

The court explained that expert testimony must be relevant and reliable. An expert may not instruct the jury on the law or give an opinion that decides an ultimate legal question. But a police-practices expert may testify about whether officers’ conduct followed law-enforcement standards, including California Peace Officer Standards and Training requirements, and whether officers could have used alternative methods to obtain compliance.

As to Clark’s Opinions Nos. 2 and 3, the court allowed Clark to testify about whether the deputies’ conduct—assuming the facts as Clark described them—complied with law-enforcement standards and whether alternative means were available to obtain Kass’s compliance. Clark could not testify about the ultimate legal question of whether the force was excessive. The court stated that Clark might be able to discuss whether Kass posed a “credible threat” if that phrase was used as a law-enforcement training concept rather than as a legal term, but the court reserved ruling on that issue pending the evidence and any proper foundation.

As to Clark’s Opinion No. 4, the court allowed him to answer hypothetical questions based on Kass’s version of events and to testify about whether conduct was consistent with law-enforcement standards and training. Clark could not testify about whether the deputies’ accounts were credible or offer his own interpretation of the video and testimonial evidence. The court found that the challenged paragraph of Opinion No. 4 improperly evaluated and interpreted the evidence rather than providing proper expert testimony.

Ruling and pretrial preparations

Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion in limine No. 4, as described above. The order did not decide whether the deputies actually used excessive force.

The order also confirmed a jury trial beginning December 6, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., and a final pretrial conference on November 18, 2021. It directed the parties to prepare a proposed final pretrial order and proposed jury instructions, address disputed instructions in memoranda, submit voir dire questions, file trial briefs on controlling legal issues, propose verdict forms, and prepare other trial materials. It stated that the trial was expected to last no more than five court days.