Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 19, 2022

Whiting v. City Of San Jose

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:21-cv-05248
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
7
Civil ProcedureEvidenceDiscovery
In one sentence

In Whiting v. City of San Jose, Judge Demarchi partly granted and partly reserved rulings on evidence motions before trial, while other motions became moot.

Who this affects

Deborah Whiting, Officer Jenni Byrd, and the parties’ presentation of evidence and witnesses at trial.

What happened

Deborah Whiting sued the City of San Jose and others, and the court considered the parties’ requests to limit evidence and testimony at trial. The order addressed medical records, a police lieutenant’s proposed testimony, financial information, undisclosed evidence, and several proposed witnesses.

The court granted Whiting’s request to exclude one medical-record exhibit and reserved judgment on another until Whiting testified. It also allowed limited testimony from Lieutenant Brandon Sanchez about police use-of-force policies, but barred him from saying whether conduct was lawful, reasonable, or excessive, or from commenting on credibility. Several of Officer Byrd’s requests became moot after Whiting withdrew claims or evidence and narrowed her witness list.

Judge Demarchi denied Officer Byrd’s motions concerning her financial information, undisclosed evidence, and the Internal Affairs and police-auditor investigations as moot. The provided text cuts off before stating the final disposition of Officer Byrd’s motion concerning four police and city officials, although it explains that Whiting would not call those witnesses.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Whiting v. City Of San Jose · No. 5:21-cv-05248
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
Sept. 19, 2022

Background

The court held a pretrial conference on September 14, 2022, and then resolved the parties’ motions in limine—requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence or testimony may be presented. The case concerns a July 10, 2019 encounter involving Deborah Whiting and Officer Jenni Byrd. The order addresses only trial evidence; it does not decide the parties’ underlying claims.

Whiting’s Motions

1. Medical records and history. Whiting sought to exclude Officer Byrd’s proposed Exhibits 109 and 110, arguing that the records were irrelevant and prejudicial. Officer Byrd responded that the records could rebut Whiting’s claim that the July 10, 2019 incident caused her emotional injuries and mental-health condition.

The court granted Whiting’s motion as to Exhibit 110, finding that it did not appear relevant to any issue in the action. The court reserved ruling on Exhibit 109 until Whiting testified at trial because the exhibit might contain information relevant to her claimed injuries, but Officer Byrd’s briefing did not adequately connect the records to those injuries. If the evidence is later admitted, the court required it to be presented without unnecessarily invading Whiting’s privacy and stated that details of traumatic events underlying any mental-health conditions should not be disclosed unless necessary.

2. Lieutenant Brandon Sanchez. Whiting sought to exclude testimony from Sanchez, a San Jose Police Department lieutenant whom Officer Byrd identified as a non-retained expert on use-of-force policies. The court allowed limited testimony about the department’s use-of-force policy and whether assumed facts would be consistent or inconsistent with that policy. Sanchez may not testify that conduct was reasonable, lawful, unreasonable, unlawful, or excessive; comment on either party’s credibility; endorse Byrd’s account; or dispute Whiting’s account. Except as allowed by those limits, Whiting’s motion to exclude Sanchez’s testimony was granted.

Officer Byrd’s Motions

1. Financial information. Byrd sought to exclude evidence about her personal finances or, alternatively, to separate any punitive-damages evidence from the rest of the trial. Whiting withdrew her request for punitive damages and stated that she did not oppose the motion. The court denied Byrd’s motion as moot.

2. Evidence and witnesses not timely disclosed. Byrd sought to prevent Whiting from presenting allegedly undisclosed photographs, medical and financial records, and testimony from several witnesses. The parties resolved the issues at or after the pretrial conference: Whiting narrowed her trial witnesses, withdrew proposed medical and financial exhibits, and agreed to a modified photograph exhibit. The court denied Byrd’s motion as moot.

3. Four police and city officials. Byrd sought to exclude testimony from Edgardo Garcia, Anthony Mata, David Sykes, and Jennifer Maguire on the ground that they were “apex” officials without personal knowledge of the events. Whiting confirmed that she would not call these witnesses. The provided opinion text cuts off after stating that Byrd’s motion should be addressed on that basis, so its exact final disposition is not visible in the supplied text.

4. Internal Affairs and police-auditor materials. Byrd sought to exclude evidence or references concerning the San Jose Department Internal Affairs investigation, the Independent Police Auditor’s review, and their conclusions, including testimony from identified witnesses. Because Whiting confirmed that she would call only herself, Byrd, and Annette Jahn, the court denied this motion as moot.

Result

The order granted Whiting’s motion as to Exhibit 110; reserved ruling on Exhibit 109; granted Whiting’s motion to exclude Sanchez’s testimony except as specifically permitted; denied Byrd’s financial-information motion as moot; denied Byrd’s untimely-disclosure motion as moot; and denied Byrd’s Internal Affairs and police-auditor motion as moot. The supplied text does not show the exact disposition of Byrd’s motion concerning Garcia, Mata, Sykes, and Maguire.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.