Martin v. City of San Jose, 3:19-cv-01227

Background

This is the Final Pretrial Conference order in Martin v. City of San Jose; jury trial set for Dec. 7, 2020; remaining claims: § 1983 against Officer Ribeiro, negligence and § 52.1 against the City.
Central dispute: during a police pursuit Officer Ribeiro struck Andy Martin with his patrol car; parties dispute whether Martin was knowingly fleeing, whether he brandished a weapon, and whether the officer’s use of the vehicle was reasonable.
Evidence issues include video (body-worn cameras), toxicology results, security-guard observations, and Martin’s extensive criminal history and incarceration periods.
Parties submitted lengthy witness and exhibit lists; Court ordered both sides to trim lists and work to stipulate to business-record authenticity to avoid custodial testimony.
The Court resolved numerous motions in limine addressing admissibility of toxicology, prior convictions, expert testimony scope (police-practices and biomechanical experts), investigatory reports/internal affairs materials, post-incident video, and dissemination of body-cam footage.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of toxicology reports	Exclude evidence not known to Ribeiro at the time of the incident.	Toxicology is relevant to causation and credibility (defense theory that intoxication contributed).	Denied: toxicology admissible as relevant to causation/credibility.
Testimony from security guards	Exclude because they did not witness the collision.	Guards can show Martin’s conduct (e.g., brandishing) and undermine his claim he did not know he was being pursued.	Reserved; Court recognized probative value for credibility but warned against collateral, time-consuming litigation.
Use of Martin’s criminal convictions for impeachment (Rule 609)	Exclude all convictions as prejudicial.	Admit convictions involving dishonesty under 609(a)(2); admit other serious convictions under 609(a)(1) subject to Rule 403.	Split: convictions involving false statements admissible; several older/felony convictions excluded under Rule 403/609 balancing; limited proof of incarceration timing permitted (not crime details).
Current criminal charges (pending)	Exclude charges as they are not convictions.	If convictions occur before trial, may be relevant.	Charges currently inadmissible under Rule 403; conviction later could be treated consistent with the Court’s other rulings (limited evidence of incarceration permitted).
Scope of police-practices expert (Ryan): POST, legal conclusions, alternatives, backing up	Ryan may testify broadly about police practices and reasonableness.	Limit testimony on POST (lack of qualifications), legal conclusions (excessive force), hindsight alternatives, and backing-up opinions.	Partial grant: exclude POST-specific testimony and legal/conclusive labels (e.g., "excessive force"); expert may testify about standards, reasonableness in context, alternatives, and limited practices about backing-up.
Scope of biomechanical/medical experts (Dr. Smith, Dr. Cohen)	Experts should be limited from offering medical diagnoses or unsupported causation opinions.	Experts may testify on mechanics/causation within their expertise; voir dire may resolve Daubert concerns.	Voir dire permitted: Dr. Smith may testify on biomechanical causation (not medical diagnoses); Dr. Cohen’s qualifications and methodology to be tested at trial before allowing causation opinions; neither may opine on officer’s intent.
City video expert (Flower) testimony	Exclude opinions on vehicle movement/reverse/backing or distance judgments.	Flower may opine based on alignment/technical analysis.	Moot in part; Flower may testify whether vehicle moved in reverse (based on expertise); plaintiff free to impeach.
Use of IPA/internal investigation reports and disciplinary findings	Plaintiff will not introduce disciplinary conclusions but seeks investigative photos/materials.	Such evidence is remedial or prejudicial; defendants seek exclusion (Maddox).	Evidence collected in investigation (photographs, diagrams, factual findings) may be admitted with proper foundation under public-records/party-opponent rules; results/conclusions are sensitive and may be excluded or admitted in whole under Rule 803(8) with limiting instructions.
Post-incident video and dissemination of body-cam footage (gag order)	Defense sought to bar plaintiff from releasing footage or limiting playback; plaintiff needs footage for credibility/damages.	Request a prior restraint and limit repeated playback to avoid juror prejudice.	Denied: court refused gag/prior restraint; post-incident footage admissible and may be used; jury instructions/voir dire will address publicity; repeated playback subject to Rule 403 objections.
Non-retained treating physicians and undisclosed healthcare providers	Plaintiff may offer treating-physician testimony beyond observed treatment; undisclosed providers should be excluded.	Treating physicians should be limited to observations/treatment; undisclosed providers excluded.	Moot/Grants in part: treating physicians may testify only to observed injuries/treatment (plaintiff agrees); undisclosed providers excluded; experts may opine on future care even if plaintiff did not previously receive it.

Key Cases Cited

Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 (1978) (Fourth Amendment assessment uses an objective standard based on what was known to the officer).
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use-of-force reasonableness judged from perspective of reasonable officer on scene; split-second judgments).
Leyva v. United States, 659 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1981) (Rule 609(a)(2) crimes involving dishonesty are admissible for impeachment).
Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (experts may testify about police standards and training to inform reasonableness analysis).
Thompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006) (experts should not give legal conclusions on excessive force).
Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2004) (expert testimony supporting findings does not permit reaching ultimate legal conclusions).
Glenn v. Washington County, 673 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2011) (availability of less-intrusive alternatives is relevant in Graham analysis).
Schultz v. Long, 44 F.3d 643 (8th Cir. 1995) (20/20 hindsight alternatives may be irrelevant to reasonableness inquiry).
Maddox v. Los Angeles, 792 F.2d 1408 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal affairs and disciplinary proceedings may be excluded as remedial or prejudicial).
Levine v. United States District Court for the Central District, 764 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1985) (gag orders are prior restraints and permissible only under strict conditions).