Vincent v. San Francisco Sheriff's Office

Background

The defendants filed four motions in limine, which are requests for advance rulings limiting evidence or testimony at trial. The court decided the motions without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The opinion states that the motions were unopposed and includes a footnote stating that Plaintiff’s counsel had repeatedly been instructed to respond but failed to do so.

Motion in Limine No. 1

The court deferred the defendants’ first motion until trial. The motion sought to exclude unrelated instances of law-enforcement misconduct as irrelevant, inadmissible hearsay, or unfairly prejudicial and confusing. The court concluded that deciding admissibility without the context of the trial evidence would require speculation about the incidents.

Motion in Limine No. 2

The court granted in part and denied in part the second motion. Plaintiff may testify from personal knowledge about his own mental and physical condition and about treatment he received. But because he is not an expert providing a medical diagnosis, he may not give expert medical opinions about the cause of his injuries.

Motion in Limine No. 3

The court granted the third motion concerning Mr. Roger Clarke’s testimony. The court ruled that an expert witness may not give legal conclusions, instruct the jury about the law, or state an opinion on an ultimate legal issue. Accordingly, Mr. Clarke could not refer the jury to the court’s order on the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, state that Deputy Tauscher “callously disregarded” Plaintiff’s safety, state that Deputy Tauscher violated California Vehicle Code section 27315, or offer certain opinions that did not address the defendants’ police-practices expert’s testimony. The court also excluded rebuttal testimony outside the same subject matter identified by another party, including opinions about “screen tests,” Deputy Tauscher’s alleged disregard for Plaintiff’s safety, and an alleged violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.

Motion in Limine No. 4

The court granted in part and deferred in part the fourth motion. Before asking questions or making arguments based on evidence of misconduct, complaints, or disciplinary actions involving Deputy Tauscher or other testifying deputies, Plaintiff had to present that evidence to the court for review. The court otherwise deferred the motion until trial.

Disposition

The court ordered that the first motion was deferred; the second motion was granted in part and denied in part; the third motion was granted; and the fourth motion was granted in part and deferred in part. This was an evidentiary order governing trial proceedings, not a decision on the underlying claims.