Devonte Stephenson v. State of California
5:21-cv-00526
C.D. Cal.Sep 8, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs challenge conduct of officers (Norem and McKee) surrounding restraint and death of Stephenson; motions in limine heard at Final Pretrial Conference on Aug 25, 2025.
- Defendants moved to exclude portions of plaintiffs’ police-practices expert (Jeffrey Noble) testimony as to Officer McKee, arguing Noble’s Rule 26 report does not opine on McKee.
- Plaintiffs moved to exclude evidence of Stephenson’s alleged methamphetamine use, mental-health history, and homelessness from hospital records, public-intoxication records, and the coroner’s report.
- Defendants argue evidence of drug use/mental health on the incident day is relevant to corroborate officers’ account, to causation (death by methamphetamine), and to comparative fault; they also seek to use past history to rebut damages (life-expectancy, relationship quality).
- Court ruled: Defendants’ MIL 1, Plaintiffs’ MIL 1, and Plaintiffs’ MIL 2 each DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. Key holdings: limits on expert testimony identifying McKee; conditional admission of drug/use evidence limited to (a) effect on behavior the day of incident (with expert foundation), (b) potential causation if supported by expert testimony, and (c) limited use regarding damages only with proper foundation; prior drug use not admissible to prove motive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of expert Noble’s testimony (opinions about McKee) | Noble’s report governs his testimony; plaintiffs say they will not go beyond the report and may apply general opinions to McKee | Noble’s report does not opine specifically on McKee; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) limits testimony to disclosed opinions | Noble may testify to opinions and general principles disclosed in his Rule 26 report but may not opine specifically about McKee or identify McKee as the subject of those opinions |
| Admission of evidence of methamphetamine use/mental illness on day of incident | Such evidence is irrelevant and unduly prejudicial to liability | Relevant to corroborate officers’ perceptions, to explain resistance, and to causation of death; admissible if supported by expert testimony | Evidence of drug use/mental-health effects on the day may be admitted if offered with admissible expert foundation tying those effects to behavior or cause of death; limiting instructions will be given |
| Admission of past history of drug use/mental illness for damages (life expectancy, quality of relationships) | Past history is irrelevant and prejudicial to liability and damages | Past history is relevant to life expectancy, relationship quality, and loss-of-enjoyment damages | Past drug/mental-health history may be admitted for damages issues only with proper foundational expert support (e.g., effect on life expectancy); cross-examination about relationship quality may be allowed but risks Rule 403 issues; bifurcation reserved |
| Use of past drug use as motive or character evidence (Rule 404) | Past use is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial | Defendants claim past use shows motive for resisting detention | Past drug use is excluded as character/motive evidence under Rule 404(b); admissibility limited to its effect on behavior at the time if properly supported by expert testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Diaz v. City of Anaheim, 840 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2016) (drug-use evidence has marginal probative value for damages and none for liability in excessive-force context)
- Boyd v. City and County of San Francisco, 576 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2009) (evidence corroborating officer’s account of what he observed before using force can be relevant)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective-reasonableness standard allows consideration of circumstances known or perceived by officer)
- Valenzuela v. City of Anaheim, 29 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2022) (discussion of loss-of-life damages and valuation considerations)