Rice v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

The court issued this final pretrial order after a May 25, 2023, pretrial conference. The plaintiff asserted two Fair Housing Act claims: that the City and County of San Francisco denied him a reasonable accommodation consisting of a rent-paying roommate, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604, and that it interfered with his exercise of rights under § 3604, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617. The order scheduled a jury trial beginning June 16, 2023, with up to four days of trial and up to eight hours per side for opening statements, closing arguments, witness examinations, and objections.

Evidentiary rulings

The court ruled on the parties’ motions in limine, which are requests to limit or exclude evidence before trial:

- The court excluded the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s determination concerning the plaintiff’s complaint. The court found that the determination was based on a different record, had minimal relevance to the City and County’s decision, and risked confusing or misleading the jury. - The court excluded evidence about the plaintiff’s disputes from 2009 through 2012 with his homeowners’ association, its attorney, and its property-management company. The ruling did not bar cross-examination about the plaintiff’s reasons for wanting rent-paying roommates during the period when he had them. - The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to exclude testimony about the amount of rent collected. It found that the evidence was relevant to why he requested a rent-paying roommate and whether allowing one would fundamentally alter the below-market-rate housing program. - The court stated that the plaintiff could testify only about matters within his personal knowledge and could not testify about matters requiring expert testimony. - The court permitted expert Scott Lines, Ph.D., to testify about matters disclosed in his report, including the plaintiff’s need for a rent-paying roommate. The court treated the City and County’s objections as concerns about the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. - The court barred the plaintiff from using a draft report to cross-examine expert William Lynch, M.D., but allowed inquiry into the bases of Lynch’s opinion. - The plaintiff conceded that the City and County was not required to engage in an interactive process and would not argue otherwise. The court nevertheless allowed inquiry into the bases for the City and County’s decisions and the processes it followed. - The court excluded portions of a 2004 joint guidance document from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice that described legal standards or discussed the interactive process. It allowed use of specified portions concerning housing providers’ obligations because they were relevant to the standard of care. The court also allowed the document’s introduction and “Questions and Answers” heading. - The court ruled that the City and County was not subject to punitive damages under the Fair Housing Act.

Other pretrial procedures

The parties had stipulated to the authenticity and chain of custody of documents produced by the City and County and the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as to certain facts. The court set procedures for reducing the exhibit list, submitting jury instructions and a verdict form, conducting attorney questioning of prospective jurors, presenting witnesses and exhibits, and notifying the court about the order of proof. Joint witnesses were to be called only once, during the plaintiff’s case.

Disposition and significance

This is a final pretrial and evidence order. It sets the trial framework and resolves the listed evidence-related requests; it does not determine which side will prevail on the Fair Housing Act claims.