Summary
denying motion to exclude evidence of settlements because "[t]he settlements at issue do not involve this case and are relevant to demonstrate whether Defendant policymakers knew of and acquiesced in officers' conduct"
Summary of this case from Turano v. Cnty. of AlamedaOpinion
No. CV 96-2666 CBM.
August 2, 2006
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENAS
The matters before the Court, the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, United States District Judge, presiding, are various motions in limine and a motion to quash filed by Defendants.
DISCUSSION
This case arises out of a June 26, 1995 incident during which Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD") Special Investigation Section ("SIS") officers had Robert Cunningham and Daniel Soly under surveillance. After Cunningham and Soly committed an armed robbery, SIS officers used their police cars to "jam" the getaway vehicle. Gunfire was exchanged and, as a result, Soly was killed, and Cunningham and several officers were seriously injured. Soly's parents and Cunningham filed this action alleging that Defendant officers used excessive force. Plaintiffs also allege that the City of Los Angeles, members of the Los Angeles Police Commission, and other supervisory officials and officers acquiesced in the use of excessive force and maintained policies encouraging such conduct.
The Court recently tried a case, Nicoletti v. Gates, CV 97-2377, involving similar allegations regarding SIS conduct. Indeed, counsel representing Plaintiffs and Defendants here represented the parties in Nicoletti. Many of the issues implicated by the instant motions were also present in the Nicoletti trial. As a result, both parties refer to the Nicoletti trial to support their arguments in support of and in opposition to Defendants' motions.
I. Motion to Exclude Newspaper Articles
Defendants seek to exclude a number of newspaper articles offered by Plaintiffs' counsel in the Nicoletti trial. The articles describe specific incidents involving the SIS unit. Plaintiffs' counsel offered the article to establish that Defendant policymakers and supervisors were on notice about the conduct of the SIS unit, but failed to take any action. Defendants argue that the articles should be excluded because they constitute hearsay. However, as the Court ruled in Nicoletti, the articles are not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein, but rather to show knowledge.
Defendants also argue that all of the articles should be excluded on the basis of relevance and prejudice. As the Court held in Nicoletti, the articles are clearly relevant to the knowledge of policymakers and supervisors. Additionally, the probativeness of the articles is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to exclude the newspaper articles.
However, Defendants may object to individual articles or to portions of articles on the basis of cumulativeness, prejudice, etc. Said objections must specifically identify the article, page, paragraph, and sentence to which Defendants object.
II. Motion to Exclude Evidence of Personnel History, Lawsuits, Etc.
Defendants seek to exclude evidence of personnel history, civil suits, prior and subsequent shootings, mention of "scandals" involving the Los Angeles Police Department, including the "Rampart" scandal, the Rodney King incident, the "Consent Decree," and/or the Christopher Commission report. Defendants argue that the evidence would be overly prejudicial, would constitute impermissible character and extrinsic evidence, and would significantly lengthen the trial. The Court considered, and rejected similar arguments in Nicoletti. Because of Plaintiffs' Monell claims, the evidence is relevant regarding supervisory and policymaking officials' knowledge, and hence, deliberate indifference. It is evidence of the custom, policy, and habits of the police department and the SIS unit. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion.
III. Motion to Exclude Evidence of Settlements and Punitive Damages
Defendants seek to exclude evidence of prior settlements and punitive damage awards. With regard to prior settlements, Defendants rely on Fed.R.Evid. 408. Defendants raised the same objection during the Nicoletti trial and the Court overruled the objection. The settlements at issue do not involve this case and are relevant to demonstrate whether Defendant policymakers knew of and acquiesced in officers' conduct. Defendants object to the admission of prior punitive damage awards on the grounds of unfair prejudice. However, the City's decision to pay punitive damages on behalf of individual officers is probative of the City's indifference and ratification of SIS conduct. See, e.g., Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 733-34 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to exclude evidence of prior settlements and punitive damage awards.
IV. Motion to Reconsider Court's Order Denying Bifurcation
Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its previous order denying Defendants' request to bifurcate the trial. The Court previously denied the motion to bifurcate on May 5, 2005. Defendants argue that the intervening Nicoletti trial constitutes the requisite emergence of new material facts for the granting of a motion for reconsideration. See L.R. 7-18. Defendants contend that the Nicoletti trial took a long time because of the Court's failure to bifurcate and ask the Court to try the instant Monell claim separately from the individual constitutional violation claims. Cf. Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986). However, the Nicoletti trial was not lengthy, consisting of approximately twenty-five hours of actual testimony. Additionally, the length of trial was not attributable to the decision not to bifurcate but rather to the parties' difficulties in ensuring the availability and attendance of witnesses. A number of court days consisted of one or two witnesses, with less than an hour of testimony. Additionally, bifurcation would waste judicial resources and hinder the understanding of Plaintiffs' theory of the case. See Martinez v. City of Oxnard, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32189 (C.D. Cal. 2005); Green v. Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624, 630-34 (C.D. Cal. 2005); Cf. Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1438, 1445 (9th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion for reconsideration.
V. Motion to Exclude Evidence of FBI and Grand Jury Investigations
Defendants ask the Court to exclude evidence of various federal investigations into the conduct of the SIS unit and its personnel. Defendants argue that such evidence is irrelevant, constitutes impermissible character and extrinsic evidence to attack witnesses' credibility. In response to incidents involving the SIS unit, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and a federal grand jury initiated an investigation. Evidence of such investigations is relevant to the knowledge of Defendant policymakers and whether they acquiesced to the SIS conduct. The evidence is not offered as character evidence or to attack individual witnesses' credibility. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to exclude evidence of the investigations.
VI. Motion to Quash Certain Subpoenas
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c) requires that persons responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on the persons subject to a subpoena. Rule 45(c) also requires courts to enforce that duty and empowers the court to quash subpoenas if they subject persons to undue burdens. Defendants seek to quash certain subpoenas. The identified subpoenas fall into four distinct categories: (1) current and former chiefs of police; (2) current and former police commissioners; (3) current and former city councilmembers; and (4) other. Within each category, Defendants have identified particular subpoenas which they argue should be quashed.
With regard to the current and former chiefs of police, Defendants seek to quash the subpoenas for current Chief William Bratton, and former Chiefs Daryl Gates and Bernard Parks, on the grounds that they were not the police chief at the time of this incident. The incident occurred in 1995. Bratton became chief in 2002, Parks in 1997, and Gates was chief from 1978-1992. Similarly, Defendants seek to quash subpoenas for former police commissioners Barbara Lindemann and Joan Milke-Flores, who both served on the Police Commission prior to the incident. Plaintiffs seek to elicit testimony regarding whether supervisory and policymaking officials had made any efforts to look into SIS activities, whether they had voted to indemnify officers for punitive damage awards, and whether they were aware of policies governing SIS conduct. The Court, in the Nicoletti trial, allowed Plaintiffs to call officials who served as a supervisory or policymaking official prior to the incident at issue in the case, shortly after the incident, or who, in their subsequent term, reviewed the incident. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion with regard to Chief Bratton, DENIES the motion with regard to former chief Gates, and former commissioners Lindemann and Milke-Flores. Plaintiffs' counsel will only be able to call former chief Parks upon a proffer that, during his term as chief, he knew of the SIS officers' conduct in this incident or similar incidents and failed to take action.
Although the officials served prior to the incident at issue in the case, there had been SIS officer-involved shooting reports much earlier.
Defendants also seek to quash subpoenas served on former city councilmembers Richard Alarcon, Mark Ridley-Thomas, and Rudy Svorinich, Jr. Defendants argue that being forced to testify would impose an undue burden because Alarcon and Ridley-Thomas would be forced to fly to Los Angeles from Sacramento, where they serve in the California legislature. Defendants further argue that, when all three were examined during the Nicoletti trial it was only for a matter of minutes and all three witnesses testified that they knew little about the SIS or incidents involving the SIS. However, as Plaintiffs point out, this testimony is evidence of what the city council did, or failed to do, to investigate the conduct of the SIS unit. However, because the office of Alarcon and Ridley-Thomas is in Sacramento, the Court will allow these witnesses to elect to testify either via live video feed from Sacramento or they may appear in Los Angeles. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion regarding Alarcon, Ridley-Thomas, and Svorinich, Jr.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendants' motions in limine. The Court DENIES Defendants' motion to quash except as to Chief Bratton, which the Court GRANTS, and as to former Chief Parks, which the Court reserves ruling subject to a proffer by Plaintiffs' counsel. The Court also will allow Alarcon and Ridley-Thomas to testify either via live video feed or in the court room.
IT IS SO ORDERED.