Ciria v. City and County of San Francisco
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:22-cv-07510
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Ciria v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Westmore ruled on defendants’ objections to evidence submitted for their summary-judgment motion.
Joaquin Ciria and the defendants, including the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Police Department, Arthur Gerrans, James Crowley, and Nicolas J. Rubino, were affected by the court’s rulings on the evidence submitted for the summary-judgment motion.
What happened
Joaquin Ciria submitted evidence in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The defendants objected to 25 pieces of evidence on grounds including relevance, hearsay, authenticity, expert qualifications, disclosure failures, and lack of personal knowledge.
The court overruled objections to Items 1 through 7, Item 8 on the stated correction ground, Items 18 and 19, and Item 15 on the stated correction ground. It sustained objections to Items 9 through 14, Items 16 and 17, and Items 20 through 25, including objections based on hearsay, relevance, improper or unsupported expert opinions, and witnesses not disclosed under the required rules.
Judge Kandis A. Westmore issued the order on May 21, 2024. The provided order decides the defendants’ evidence objections; it does not state a ruling on the underlying summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Ciria v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 4:22-cv-07510
- Kandis Westmore
- May 21, 2024
Background
The defendants filed formal objections to evidence that Joaquin Ciria offered in opposition to their motion for summary judgment. The defendants included the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Police Department, Arthur Gerrans, James Crowley, and Nicolas J. Rubino. The order addresses 25 listed pieces of evidence and applies the Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rulings on the Evidence
The court overruled the relevance objections to Items 1 through 7. Those items included statements, deposition testimony, declarations, and trial testimony concerning events and information that the defendants argued were not known to inspectors when Ciria was charged.
For Item 8, Marina Flores’s 2024 deposition, the court overruled the objections on the ground that Ciria corrected the exhibit. The court also overruled the authenticity objection to Item 15, Kristina Martin’s 2024 deposition, on the same stated ground that Ciria corrected the exhibit.
The court sustained the objections to Item 9, a transcript of a 1991 defense-counsel interview of Roberto Hernandez, based on relevance and hearsay. It sustained the objections to Item 10, Roberto Socorro’s 2020 declaration, based on relevance and hearsay, including the court’s finding that the declaration was not executed under penalty of perjury as required by the cited federal statute.
The court sustained the objection to Item 11, Elyzobeida Vecino’s 2024 declaration, in its entirety because the witness was not disclosed as required by Rule 26. It also sustained relevance objections to specified paragraphs and hearsay and personal-knowledge objections to other specified paragraphs. The court sustained objections to Item 12, Randy Montesano’s 2020 declaration, based on relevance and lack of personal knowledge concerning whether George Varela was a drug addict in April 1990.
The court sustained the objections to Item 13, the 2021 San Francisco District Attorney’s Innocence Commission Report, based on relevance and hearsay, and also as to the remainder of the report that Ciria’s opposition did not discuss. It sustained the objections to Item 14, Dr. Dysart’s 2024 expert report, based on relevance, the expert’s asserted lack of expertise in 1990 police practices, and the portions of the report not discussed in Ciria’s opposition.
The court sustained the objections to Items 16 and 17, which were pleadings filed in another case, based on hearsay. It overruled the objections to Items 18 and 19, Denise Corretjer’s and Caridad Gonzales’s 2020 declarations. The defendants argued that statements by George Varela did not qualify under a hearsay exception because Ciria had not established Varela’s unavailability. The court overruled those objections on the stated grounds in the order.
The court sustained the objections to Items 20 and 21, Dr. Leo’s 2024 expert report and rebuttal report, based on unreliable or improper expert opinions and on portions that were not discussed in Ciria’s opposition. For the rebuttal report, the court also sustained the objection that the report should be excluded because the moving party had not relied on the expert being rebutted.
The court sustained the objection to Item 22, Manuel “Manolo” Alvarez’s 2014 declaration, based on hearsay because the witness was deceased and could not testify at trial. It sustained the objections to Item 23, Eucebio Maceo’s 2004 declaration, because the witness was not disclosed under Rule 26, because the witness had not spoken with police or heard their questions, and, as to one paragraph, because of hearsay.
The court sustained the objections to Items 24 and 25, Adam Bercovici’s 2024 expert report and rebuttal report. The stated grounds included lack of a factual basis, improper expert opinions concerning legal issues, portions not discussed in Ciria’s opposition, and, for the rebuttal report, failure to satisfy the cited rebuttal-report requirements.
Disposition and Effect
The court entered the order on the defendants’ objections to Ciria’s evidence. The provided text does not rule on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment itself and does not decide the merits of Ciria’s claims. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.