Bell v. Lee

Nature of the order

The court entered a final pretrial order after an April 16, 2024 conference. The case was set for a jury trial beginning April 30, 2024. The order resolved trial-management issues and several motions about what evidence the jury could hear. It did not enter a judgment on the underlying claims.

Trial procedures

The jury will have eight members, and each side will have four peremptory challenges, meaning four opportunities to remove potential jurors without giving a stated reason. Jurors must wear masks. The court will conduct general questioning of the jury panel, and each side may question the panel for up to 20 minutes. The parties may submit an amended neutral statement of the case by April 26, 2024.

The parties must file reduced witness lists on April 22 and coordinate witness scheduling. By April 29, they must tell the court whether they intend to call any witnesses remotely. The trial was estimated and set for five days. Each side may use up to 30 minutes for opening statements, 10 hours for presenting evidence, and one hour for closing argument. The parties requested that punitive damages be handled in a separate phase if necessary, and each side will have up to 30 minutes for argument in that phase.

Jury selection and trial were scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on April 30. Trial days were set to run from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with scheduled breaks. The court does not hold trials on Fridays, although the jury may deliberate on Fridays.

Sanctions, expert testimony, and evidence

The defendants’ administrative motion to strike was denied. The plaintiff’s request concerning a video was denied without prejudice, meaning the request could be renewed; the plaintiff may renew a request for an unfavorable instruction to the jury at the conference about the jury instructions if the trial evidence supports it. The defendants may present related evidence.

The plaintiff’s motion to limit Don Cameron’s expert report and testimony was granted as to Cameron. The defendants’ motion to limit Robert Ayers’s testimony was granted in part: Ayers may not testify about witness credibility or legal conclusions, but the balance of the motion concerning Ayers was denied. Neither expert may give opinions about witness credibility, disputed facts, the governing legal standard, or whether the deputies’ conduct was reasonable or used excessive force. The experts may testify about hypothetical facts. Ayers may testify about whether incident reports, or the absence of incident reports, violated policy or practice.

The plaintiff’s motion to exclude other bad acts was denied as to the plaintiff’s 2012 arrest charges, because those charges were relevant to the defendants’ knowledge. The parties must prepare a neutral description of those charges, and defendants may not question witnesses about their details or call them “high-profile.” The motion was granted as to the plaintiff’s 2007 and 2011 convictions unless they are used for impeachment. Any attempt to use those records to rebut the plaintiff’s testimony requires an offer of proof outside the jury’s presence.

The plaintiff’s motion to prevent the defendants from calling the plaintiff’s former criminal counsel and investigator, and to exclude related documents, was denied. The plaintiff’s request to appear without visible restraints was granted. If the plaintiff becomes disruptive or another reason for restraints arises, the court may require one of his hands to be shackled to his waist outside the jury’s presence. The court also approved security and computer-access measures requested by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office.

The plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence about weapons in wheelchairs was denied without prejudice to renewal at trial. Before presenting that evidence, defendants must make an offer of proof outside the jury’s presence. The plaintiff’s motion concerning an internal-affairs investigation and other grievances was denied as moot as to the investigation, without prejudice to specific trial objections. The three unrelated grievances may be admitted to show prior injuries, subject to discussions about redactions. The request to exclude medical evidence altogether was denied, but only relevant medical records may be admitted and defendants must try to minimize or redact references to altercations and fights.

Additional motions in limine

A motion in limine is a request for a pretrial ruling about evidence. The defendants’ motion to exclude evidence or argument about dismissed or unalleged claims was granted as to argument or references to those claims. The balance of that motion was denied without prejudice to renewal at trial. The plaintiff may present evidence about conditions in the safety cell and medical care after the incident, subject to the court’s stated requirements.

The defendants’ request to bar punitive damages was denied. The court stated that the plaintiff’s request for $250,000 from the individual defendants and $20,000,000 from the City and County of San Francisco gave notice of a possible punitive-damages claim. The defendants’ request to bifurcate the punitive-damages issue was addressed through the separate punitive-damages phase described in the trial procedures.

The defendants’ motion concerning unrelated newsworthy events was granted as to evidence, except for references to other uses of force by jail staff against the plaintiff. The plaintiff must make an offer of proof before presenting evidence containing such a reference. The defendants’ motion concerning personnel records, disciplinary proceedings, and character evidence resulted in rulings on specific trial exhibits: Exhibits 30 and 43 may be used to cross-examine Lieutenant Krol about findings bearing on truthfulness; Exhibit 35 may be used to cross-examine De Los Reyes about a truthfulness finding, but its excessive-force finding is excluded; and Exhibits 31, 41, and 42 were excluded. The court ordered the plaintiff’s opposition to that motion and an accompanying declaration sealed, while allowing the attached exhibits to be publicly filed after refiling.

The defendants’ motion to exclude the plaintiff’s personal-history and general character evidence was denied without prejudice to specific objections at trial. Their motion to exclude lay opinions was granted as to opinions about medical care, diagnoses, or excessive force, but denied as to testimony about medical care the plaintiff did or did not receive and what the plaintiff experienced regarding his injuries. The defendants’ motion concerning a spoliated fourth videotape was denied as moot.

Exhaustion and disclosure

The defendants’ motion to exclude evidence about issues they said were not exhausted was denied. The court found that the plaintiff’s grievances adequately notified the jail of the relevant problems for purposes of the prison grievance exhaustion requirement. The defendants’ motion concerning evidence not timely disclosed was denied as moot because the plaintiff said he would not introduce recently obtained medical records. The order states that the plaintiff was not seeking damages for continuing physical injuries after April 28, 2017, but would seek damages for continuing emotional injuries.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston resolved the listed pretrial motions with the grants, denials, denials without prejudice, denials as moot, and partial rulings stated above. The order primarily governed trial procedure and evidence; it did not resolve the merits of the claims.