Ciria v. City and County of San Francisco ( 2024 )

1 DAVID CHIU, State Bar #189542 City Attorney 2 JENNIFER E. CHOI, State Bar #184058 Chief Trial Deputy 3 PETER J. KEITH, State Bar #206482 Chief of Special Litigation 4 AARON I. WIENER, State Bar #347169 JOSE A. ZELIDON-ZEPEDA, State Bar #227108 5 Deputy City Attorneys Fox Plaza 6 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, California 94102-5408 7 Telephone: (415) 554-3908 [Keith] Telephone: (415) 554-3952 [Wiener] 8 Telephone: (415) 355-3312 [Zelidon-Zepeda] Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 9 E-Mail: peter.keith@sfcityatty.org E-Mail: aaron.wiener@sfcityatty.org 10 E-Mail: jose.zelidon-zepeda@sfcityatty.org 11 Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (including 12 its SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT), ARTHUR GERRANS, JAMES CROWLEY, AND 13 NICHOLAS J. RUBINO 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 JOAQUIN CIRIA, Case No. 22-cv-07510 KAW (JCS) 18 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE 19 vs. ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 20 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO POLICE AS MODIFIED 21 DEPARTMENT; ARTHUR GERRANS; JAMES CROWLEY; NICOLAS J. RUBINO; Dkt. No. 101 22 AND DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, Hearing Date: May 2, 2024 23 Defendants. Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: ZOOM 24 Judge: Hon. Kandis A. Westmore 25 Trial Date: July 1, 2024 26 27 1 Upon review of Defendants’ formal objections, and Plaintiff’s response, the Court rules as 2 follows: 3 Evidence Basis for Objection Ruling 4 1. ECF No. 90-1 F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not known 5 (Yojana Paiz’s 4/19/90 to inspectors at time Plaintiff was charged) OVERRULED statement to the inspectors) 6 2. ECF No. 90-2 F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not known 7 (Marina Flores’ 4/19/90 to inspectors at time Plaintiff was charged) OVERRULED statement to the inspectors) 8 9 3. ECF No. 89-28 F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not known (Yojana Paiz’s 2024 to inspectors at time Plaintiff was charged) OVERRULED 10 deposition) 11 4. ECF No. 89-22 F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not known (Kathleen Guevara’s to inspectors at time Plaintiff was charged) OVERRULED 12 4/26/1990 statement to the 13 inspectors) 14 5. ECF No. 89-23 F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not known (Kenneth Duff’s 5/1/1990 to inspectors at time Plaintiff was charged) OVERRULED 15 statement to the inspectors) 16 6. ECF No. 89-24 F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not known 17 (1991 trial testimony of to inspectors at time Plaintiff was charged) OVERRULED Kenneth Duff and Kathleen 18 Guevara) 19 7. ECF No. 89-2 F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not known 20 (Lazaro Reyes’s 2024 to inspectors at time Plaintiff was charged) OVERRULED declaration, ¶¶ 2-7) 21 8. ECF No. 89-29 a. F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not 22 (Marina Flores’ 2024 known to inspectors at time Plaintiff was OVERRULED on 23 deposition) charged) the grounds that Plaintiff corrected 24 b. F.R.E. 901 (authenticity - uncertified rough this exhibit. transcript) 25 26 27 Evidence Basis for Objection Ruling 1 9. ECF No. 90-21 a. F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not 2 (transcript of 1/23/1991 known to inspectors at time Plaintiff was SUSTAINED defense counsel interview charged) 3 of Roberto Hernandez) b. F.R.E. 801 (hearsay) 4 10. ECF No. 90-15 a. F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not 5 (Roberto Socorro’s 2020 known to inspectors at time Plaintiff was 6 declaration) charged) SUSTAINED 7 b. F.R.E. 801 (hearsay – declaration was executed in Cuba but not under penalty of 8 perjury under “the laws of the United States of America” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1746(1)) 9 10 11. ECF No. 89-1 a. F.R.C.P. 37(c)(1) (witness was never (Elyzobeida Vecino’s 2024 disclosed per Rule 26), as to entire declaration 11 declaration) SUSTAINED b. F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not 12 known to inspectors at time Plaintiff was charged), as to ¶¶ 2-4, 6, 8-10 13 14 c. F.R.E. 801 & F.R.E. 602 (hearsay and lack of personal knowledge), as to ¶¶ 6, 8-10 15 12. ECF No. 90-24 a. F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not 16 (Randy Montesano’s 2020 known to inspectors at time Plaintiff was 17 declaration) charged) SUSTAINED 18 b. F.R.E. 602 (lack of personal knowledge), as to whether George Varela was a drug addict in 19 April 1990 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Evidence Basis for Objection Ruling 1 13. ECF No. 88-4 a. F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not 2 (SFDA Innocence known to inspectors at time Plaintiff was Commission Report, 2021) charged) SUSTAINED 3 b. F.R.E. 801 (hearsay) 4 c. F.R.C.P. 56(c)(3); Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 5 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (“We rely on the 6 nonmoving party to identify with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes 7 summary judgment.”) (quotations and brackets omitted); F.R.E. 403 (fairness, time), as to the 8 remainder of the voluminous report that was not discussed in Plaintiff’s Opposition 9 10 14. ECF No. 89-11 a. F.R.E. 401 (relevance – information not (Dr. Dysart’s 2024 expert known to inspectors at time Plaintiff was SUSTAINED 11 report) charged; expert opinions concern reliability of eyewitness identifications at the 1991 trial; 12 opinion based on post-1990 research not known to inspectors) 13 14 b. F.R.E. 702 (Dr. Dysart lacks expertise in 1990 police practices) 15 c. F.R.C.P. 56(c)(3); Keenan, 91 F.3d at 1279; 16 F.R.E. 403 (fairness, time), as to the remainder 17 of the voluminous report that was not discussed in Plaintiff’s Opposition 18 15. ECF No. 90-27 F.R.E. 901 (authenticity - uncertified rough OVERRULED on 19 (Kristina Martin’s 2024 transcript) the grounds that deposition) Plaintiff corrected 20 this exhibit. 21 16. ECF No. 89-20 F.R.E. 801 (hearsay) (Pleading filed in Cole v. SUSTAINED 22 City of Los Angeles) 23 17. ECF No. 90-3 F.R.E. 801 (hearsay) (Pleading filed in Cole v. SUSTAINED 24 City of Los Angeles) 25 26 27 Evidence Basis for Objection Ruling 1 18. ECF No. 90-13 a. F.R.E. 801 (hearsay), F.R.E. 804(b)(3) does 2 (Denise Corretjer’s 2020 not apply because Plaintiff has not established OVERRULED declaration) George Varela’s unavailability 3 b. Even if George Varela were unavailable, 4 any non-self-inculpatory statements from Varela about the inspectors or any reasons for 5 lying, are not admissible under F.R.E. 6 804(b)(3) 7 19. ECF No. 90-14 a. F.R.E. 801 (hearsay); F.R.E. 804(b)(3) does (Caridad Gonzales’ 2020 not apply because Plaintiff has not established OVERRULED 8 declaration) George Varela’s unavailability 9 b. Even if George Varela were unavailable, 10 any non-self-inculpatory statements from Varela about the inspectors or any reasons for 11 lying, are not admissible under F.R.E. 804(b)(3) 12 20. ECF No. 89-8 a. F.R.E. 702 (expert opinion – unreliable) 13 (Dr. Leo’s 2024 expert SUSTAINED 14 report) b. F.R.E. 702; U.S. v. Tamman, 782 F.3d 543, 552 (9th Cir. 2015) (expert opinion – not 15 permitted on legal issues, state of mind, or to characterize evidence) 16 17 c. F.R.C.P. 56(c)(3); Keenan, 91 F.3d at 1279; F.R.E. 403 (fairness, time), as to the remainder 18 of the voluminous report that was not discussed in Plaintiff’s Opposition 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Evidence Basis for Objection Ruling 1 21. ECF No. 89-9 a. F.R.E. 702 (expert opinion – unreliable) 2 (Dr. Leo’s 2024 rebuttal SUSTAINED expert report) b. F.R.E. 702 (expert opinion – not permitted 3 on legal issues, state of mind, or to characterize evidence) 4 c. F.R.C.P. 56(c)(3); Keenan, 91 F.3d at 1279; 5 F.R.E. 403 (fairness, time); the Opposition 6 does not discuss any of this voluminous rebuttal report 7 d. F.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii); Truckstop.Net, 8 L.L.C. v. Sprint Commc’ns Co., 537 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1133 (D. Idaho 2008) (rebuttal report 9 should be excluded where moving party did 10 not rely on expert being rebutted) 11 22. ECF No. 90-29 FRE 801 (hearsay – witness is deceased and (Manuel “Manolo” cannot testify at trial) SUSTAINED 12 Alvarez’s 2014 declaration) 13 14 23. ECF No. 90-28 a. F.R.C.P. 37(c)(1) (witness was never (Eucebio Maceo’s 2004 disclosed per Rule 26) SUSTAINED 15 declaration) b. F.R.E. 401 (relevance – witness never spoke 16 with police or heard any of their questions) 17 c. F.R.E. 801 (hearsay), as to ¶ 9 18 24. ECF No. 89-5 a. F.R.E. 702(b) (expert opinion regarding 19 (Adam Bercovici’s 2024 inspectors’ duty to disclose exculpatory SUSTAINED expert report) evidence has no factual basis, because 20 Alvarez’s declaration, ECF No. 90-29, is 21 inadmissible) 22 b. F.R.E. 702 (expert opinion – not permitted on legal issues) 23 c. F.R.C.P. 56(c)(3); Keenan, 91 F.3d at 1279; 24 F.R.E. 403 (fairness, time), as to the remainder 25 of the voluminous report that was not discussed in Plaintiff’s Opposition 26 27 Basis for Objection [Ruling 25. ECF No. 89-6 a. F.R.E. 702(b) (expert opinion regarding 2 ||| (Adam Bercovici’s 2024 inspectors’ duty to disclose exculpatory SUSTAINED rebuttal expert report) evidence has no factual basis, because 3 Alvarez’s declaration, ECF No. 90-29, is 4 inadmissible) 5 b. F.R.E. 702 (expert opinion — not permitted on legal issues) 6 c. F.R.C.P. 56(c)(3); Keenan, 91 F.3d at 1279; 7 F.R.E. 403 (fairness, time); the Opposition does not discuss any of this voluminous 8 rebuttal report ? d. F.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(D) Gi); Truckstop.Net, 10 L.L.C., 537 F. Supp. 2d at 1133 (rebuttal report should be excluded where moving party did 11 not rely on expert being rebutted) 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: May 21, 2024 By: 16 AWDIS A. WESTMORE U7 Unitéd States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Order on Defs. Objections to PIf. Evidence 7 \\candoak.cand.cire9.den\data\users\kawall\_cv\2022\2022_07510