S.J. v. Albany Unified School District

Nature of the ruling

This is a pretrial conference document containing tentative rulings on motions in limine, evidentiary objections, the verdict form, jury instructions, and trial administration. A motion in limine asks the court to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be presented.

Motions in limine

The court ruled on the following requests:

- Plaintiff’s request to limit a defendant’s expert testimony to opinions expressed in depositions and expert reports was granted to the extent the request sought to prevent opinions outside those materials. The court found a further request to limit Dr. Schwartzberg’s opinions to seven specific deposition passages premature and unsupported. - Plaintiff’s request to exclude evidence concerning S.B. was granted. The court stated that evidence about S.B. must be excluded, as further discussed in the ruling on Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3. - Plaintiff’s request to exclude exhibits not disclosed on the defendant’s exhibit list was granted. - Plaintiff’s request concerning previously unidentified or untimely disclosed witnesses was granted in part and denied in part. The court allowed the defendant to elicit expert testimony from five individuals identified in plaintiff’s expert disclosures or covered by the defendant’s expert disclosure. The court barred the defendant from calling Lauren Halperin, Amy Evoy, and Linda Bishop because they were not timely disclosed. - Defendant’s request to exclude evidence of its policies, regulations, and procedures was denied. The court explained that such evidence may help show what an existing duty of care required. - Defendant’s request to exclude all out-of-court statements about the November 2019 incident was denied. The court stated that some statements could qualify for exceptions to the hearsay rule, including the excited-utterance or residual exceptions. - Defendant’s request to exclude evidence of prior bullying incidents was granted in part, or qualified. The court said those incidents do not automatically show that S.J.’s injury was foreseeable. They may be relevant if the circumstances were sufficiently similar to provide notice, such as a lack of classroom supervision that resulted in bullying or prior bullying by one of S.J.’s assailants. - Defendant’s request to bar arguments based on the “Golden Rule” or the “Reptile Rule” was denied. The court found the request premature and overbroad, while stating that referring to the larger community or a duty to prevent harm would not necessarily be improper.

Evidentiary objections

The court noted that neither party responded to the other party’s written objections. It nevertheless reviewed the objections on their merits as best it could and stated that it would not consider responses first made at the pretrial conference.

The court sustained plaintiff’s objections to several expert curricula vitae, expert reports, and a teacher’s opinions in S.J.’s report card. It explained that curricula vitae and expert reports are generally hearsay, although an expert may testify about the basis for an opinion and the materials reviewed. The court overruled objections to S.J.’s 2017 and October 2019 individualized education programs because they were part of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 27. It also overruled objections to several adequately disclosed witnesses, including Lydia Adkins, Officer Erick Chavez, Arlene Fischoff, Detective Justin Kurland, and Officer Peter O’Connor, while sustaining objections to Linda Bishop, Amy Evoy, and Lauren Halperin because they were not timely disclosed.

The court sustained or overruled defendants’ objections to particular exhibits. Among other rulings, it excluded as irrelevant several emails and reports concerning incidents other than the November 2019 incident, overruled objections to materials concerning S.J.’s investigation and certain conduct by one of S.J.’s assailants, and overruled objections to an application containing information about the after-care program and staff-to-student ratios. It sustained, subject to qualification, objections to S.J.’s medical records because medical records are hearsay unless an exception is shown. It also limited Officer O’Connor’s testimony to the investigation of S.J.’s case and barred testimony about other incidents; the court sustained objections to related testimony by Officer Erick Chavez and Detective Justin Kurland concerning other investigations and an alleged mandatory reporting duty.

The court sustained all objections to the parties’ deposition excerpts as unopposed. It added that deposition excerpts are not themselves evidence that can simply be placed into the trial record, although they may be used to refresh a witness’s memory or for impeachment.

Verdict form

The parties’ proposed verdict forms addressed whether the defendant was negligent, whether that negligence was a substantial factor in causing S.J.’s harm, and the amount of damages. The defendant also sought questions about whether other students involved in the November incident were at fault and whether they were responsible for a percentage of S.J.’s harm.

The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the defendant could not seek to allocate responsibility based on the intentional acts of other students. Applying the California authorities discussed in the opinion, the court concluded that a negligent defendant may seek to reduce its damages based on the intentional acts of others. The defendant still must establish that the nonparty students were at fault; showing only that they contributed to S.J.’s injuries is not enough.

Jury instructions

The court stated that it would include several standard instructions, including instructions on the jury’s duties, claims and defenses, evidence used for a limited purpose, publicity during trial, the lack of a trial transcript for the jury, and unconscious bias. It also directed the parties to submit a joint version of one instruction concerning claims and defenses.

The court would issue plaintiff’s unopposed proposed instructions concerning supervision or retention of an employee, liability and damages, economic and noneconomic damages, medical expenses, present cash value, pain, mental suffering, and emotional distress. It also would issue defendant’s unopposed instructions concerning reliance on others’ good conduct, custom or practice, causation, multiple causes, and the absence of punitive damages.

The court indicated that an instruction concerning the willful misconduct or negligence of students might be technically correct but could confuse the jury by overemphasizing the role of other students. It directed the parties to propose an instruction focused on whether a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen injuries of the same general type without adequate safeguards. The court would use plaintiff’s proposed instructions for several damages subjects and defendant’s proposed instructions on mitigation of damages and nominal damages.

Administrative and health matters

The court directed the parties to provide realistic estimates of examination times and total trial time and to be prepared to discuss public access to the trial and courtroom technology. The parties were also directed to be prepared to discuss possible hybrid proceedings and health precautions if a COVID-19 case or exposure occurred, along with masking and other courthouse requirements.