Alvarado v. Oakland County
809 F. Supp. 2d 680
E.D. Mich.2011Background
- Plaintiff alleges excessive force by Deputy Micky Simpkinson during a July 23, 2007 traffic stop leading to injuries and disability.
- This action proceeds on claims of excessive force (Count I), assault (Count III) and battery (Count IV) after partial summary judgment.
- Motions in limine were filed by Plaintiff (Dkt. 39) and Defendants (Dkts. 57, 46) to exclude evidence and expert testimony at trial.
- Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence of intoxication and prior alcohol-related offenses; Defendants seek to admit expert testimony from Dr. Lyman and Dr. Sase.
- Court held a hearing on August 1, 2011 and issued rulings granting in part and denying in part, with deferral on Dr. Sase until liability concludes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of intoxication evidence | Intoxication evidence not relevant to liability | Intoxication bears on justification/provocation and credibility | Admissible; relevant to reasonableness and credibility, with limits on certain details |
| Admissibility of prior alcohol-related incidents | Prior incidents are irrelevant to current conduct | Prior incidents show knowledge, motive, and absence of mistake | Admissible to prove knowledge, motive, and avoid mistake under Rule 404(b) and not unfairly prejudicial |
| Exclusion of sobriety-test refusals | Refusals are relevant to dismissed claim and should be excluded | May have marginal relevance to ongoing issues | Excluded as marginal relevance and prejudicial |
| Dr. Lyman's expert testimony | Dr. Lyman can opine on excessive force and standards | Limit opinions to avoid legal conclusions; focus on policies, procedures, and force continuum | Permitted to discuss standards and policies; prohibited from opining that conduct was unreasonable; use of force testimony allowed within limits |
| Deferral on Dr. Sase's expert testimony | N/A | N/A | Ruling deferred until liability phase |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Sanilac County, 606 F.3d 240 (6th Cir. 2010) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force analysis)
- Fox v. DeSoto, 489 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 2007) (totality of circumstances standard for reasonableness)
- Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342 (6th Cir. 1994) (rejects expert testimony that expresses ultimate legal conclusions like 'deliberate indifference')
- Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 359 (2d Cir. 1992) (limits on expert testimony conveying legal conclusions)
- DeMerrell v. City of Cheboygan, 206 Fed.Appx. 418 (6th Cir. 2006) (precludes expert from giving legal conclusions about excessive force)
- Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893 (6th Cir. 2004) (recognizes admissibility of certain police-practice expert testimony on force continuum)
- Thompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006) (distinction between general orders and policies; use of expert testimony on policies)