Johnson v. City of San Jose

Background

Kyle Johnson attended a May 30, 2020 protest in San Jose. He alleges that Officer James Adgar struck the back of his left knee with a 40-millimeter projectile impact weapon. Johnson brought claims against the City of San Jose and Officer Adgar. Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs expert testimony, to exclude opinions from Johnson’s police-practices expert, Roger Clark, and medical expert, Dr. Harlan Watkins.

The court’s role under Rule 702 was to decide whether the proposed expert testimony was relevant, based on sufficient facts or data, produced through reliable methods, and reliably applied to the case. The court emphasized that questions about the strength or correctness of admissible expert opinions generally concern the evidence’s weight, which the jury can evaluate, rather than its admissibility.

Roger Clark’s Testimony

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion concerning Roger Clark.

The court excluded Clark’s opinions about what the video evidence showed, including opinions that the video established that Officer Adgar aimed at, fired at, and intentionally struck Johnson. The court found that Clark was not shown to have expertise in interpreting video evidence and that the jury could view the videos and draw its own conclusions. Clark could still use the videos as a basis for other opinions, and Johnson could ask him hypothetical questions about the videos, subject to objections.

The court also excluded Clark’s opinions about Officer Adgar’s credibility, intentions, state of mind, or alleged animus. The court found that Clark lacked relevant expertise to make those determinations and that the opinions were speculative. Clark could testify about whether officers’ actions complied with professional standards and could answer properly framed hypothetical questions.

The court excluded Clark’s opinions about the adequacy of San Jose Police Department training and policies to the extent those opinions were relevant only to Johnson’s claim against the City based on failure to train or supervise. The court had previously granted summary judgment on that claim.

The court allowed Clark to testify about whether the San Jose Police Department’s and Officer Adgar’s actions complied with standard police practices, based on Clark’s experience. But the court stated that Clark was not an expert in less-lethal projectiles or crowd-control tactics and could not offer opinions based on purported expertise in those specific subjects. The court denied, without prejudice, defendants’ objections to opinions that the police department used indiscriminate force or showed disregard for protesters’ safety, leaving those objections available during trial examination.

Dr. Harlan Watkins’s Testimony

The court granted in part and otherwise denied defendants’ motion concerning Dr. Harlan Watkins.

The court allowed Watkins to testify that Johnson’s March 2021 pulmonary embolism was caused by the earlier deep-vein thrombosis and related anticoagulant treatment. The court found that Watkins was qualified, had reviewed Johnson’s medical records and examined him, relied on medical literature and experience, and used a sufficiently reliable medical approach. The court treated defendants’ disagreement with the opinion and possible alternative causes as issues for the jury to consider when weighing the testimony.

The court excluded Watkins’s opinion about the cause of Johnson’s chronic left ankle pain and swelling. Watkins identified several possible causes, including ulcerative-colitis-related arthritis, post-thrombotic syndrome caused by a deep-vein thrombosis, chronic ankle sprain, or a combination of those conditions. But the court found that he did not explain why the other possibilities were ruled out or why post-thrombotic syndrome was the most likely cause.

The court allowed Watkins to testify about Johnson’s future medical needs, including lifelong anticoagulant treatment and estimated future emergency-room visits and hospitalizations. The court found that Watkins adequately identified the medical principles and literature supporting those opinions and that estimates of future care fell within a medical expert’s experience.

Order

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that defendants’ motion concerning Roger Clark, ECF No. 110, was GRANTED IN PART as to opinions about San Jose Police Department training and policies, the video evidence, and Officer Adgar’s credibility, state of mind, or intentions. The motion was otherwise DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to defendants’ objections during examination.

The court ordered that defendants’ motion concerning Dr. Watkins, ECF No. 112, was GRANTED IN PART as to his opinion about the cause of Johnson’s left ankle pain and was otherwise DENIED, including as to his opinions about the March 2021 pulmonary embolism and Johnson’s need for future treatment.