Martinez v. County of Alameda

Background

This pretrial order addresses motions in limine—requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence or testimony may be presented. Martinez’s case concerns services and technology available at the County Clerk-Recorder’s Office in Oakland, including her allegation that she was denied scribe services to complete a Fictitious Business Name Statement form on March 29, 2019. The County argued, among other things, that evidence about other people’s experiences and expert opinions should be excluded.

Defendant’s Motions in Limine

The court denied the County’s Motion in Limine No. 1 without prejudice. Evidence that other public entities provided scribe services was relevant to whether scribe services are an effective auxiliary aid or service and to the County’s argument that they were not a reasonable accommodation. The County may raise objections based on unfair prejudice, speculation, hearsay, or lack of foundation at trial.

The court denied the County’s Motion in Limine No. 2 without prejudice. Testimony from Marco Salsiccia and Lucia Greco about receiving scribe services at the same office was relevant to Martinez’s claims concerning effective auxiliary aids or services, declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, and impeachment. Testimony from Raymond Macapagal about using the County’s computer kiosk and screen reader was relevant to Martinez’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The County may raise trial objections to testimony that is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, misleading, hearsay, speculative, or lacking foundation.

The court granted in part and denied in part the County’s Motion in Limine No. 3 concerning Martinez’s experts Steven Clark, Karen McCall, and Eve Hill. The court excluded certain opinions that the County’s forms were not “accessible” under professional or legal standards because those opinions amounted to legal conclusions. It also excluded Hill’s opinions about whether the County’s offered or current auxiliary aids were “equally effective” to the requested scribe services because those opinions addressed legal conclusions about ultimate factual issues.

The court allowed other proposed testimony. Clark could testify about whether the electronic form could be independently completed by an average blind person using screen-reader technology, and about the relative time, complexity, and confusion associated with the County’s process and scribe services. McCall could testify that the forms could not be independently completed by a blind person using screen-reader technology, compare different form versions without offering legal conclusions about accessibility, and identify whether problems persisted. Hill could testify that a scribe is a common auxiliary aid for communicating with blind people and could offer a limited opinion about the scope of the County’s expert Cris Vaughan’s expertise. The court also denied, without prejudice, the County’s objections based on cumulative testimony and Clark’s claimed lack of expertise, while allowing the County to raise an objection at trial if testimony is unnecessarily cumulative.

Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine

The court granted Martinez’s Motion in Limine No. 1. The County was not asserting an undue-burden or fundamental-alteration defense, so the motion excluded defenses or assertions on those grounds. The ruling did not exclude evidence about the County’s argument that scribe services could create situations involving legal advice or unauthorized practice of law when offered for other purposes, including whether scribe services were a reasonable accommodation or appropriate auxiliary aid.

The court denied Martinez’s Motion in Limine No. 2 without prejudice because the request to exclude a March 29, 2012 text message was premature without testimonial context. The court denied Martinez’s Motion in Limine No. 3 because she did not identify the specific evidence concerning later remedial measures that she sought to exclude; the court stated that part of her request was better suited to a proposed jury instruction and that objections could be raised at trial. The court denied Martinez’s Motion in Limine No. 4 without prejudice because the parties had not provided Vaughan’s expert report, preventing the court from evaluating the quoted statements in context. The court declined to exclude all expert testimony or limit it to hypothetical questions.

Other Pretrial Rulings and Trial Schedule

The court overruled without prejudice the County’s objection to several of Martinez’s proposed witnesses because the County had not provided Martinez’s initial disclosures, leaving the court unable to evaluate the objection’s merits. Each side received 20 total hours for trial, including opening and closing statements and rebuttal. Opening statements were limited to 45 minutes per side, and closing statements, including rebuttal, were limited to one hour per side.

The parties were ordered to exchange and submit exhibits and related designations by March 7, 2024, and to file an updated list of trial participants by March 4, 2024. The parties indicated that they planned to dismiss the individual defendants without prejudice, with a stipulation due March 4, 2024; the order did not state that the dismissal had occurred. Trial was set to begin on March 26, 2024, with a juror-hardship hearing and equipment check scheduled for March 25, 2024.

Disposition

Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied the County’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1–2, granted in part and denied in part the County’s Motion in Limine No. 3, granted Martinez’s Motion in Limine No. 1, and denied Martinez’s Motions in Limine Nos. 2–4. The order was a pretrial and evidentiary ruling rather than a decision on the merits of Martinez’s claims.