Banks-Reed v. Bay Area Rapid Transit

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJanuary 13, 2020
Docket4:18-cv-05755
StatusUnknown

This text of Banks-Reed v. Bay Area Rapid Transit (Banks-Reed v. Bay Area Rapid Transit) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Banks-Reed v. Bay Area Rapid Transit, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5

6 YOLANDA BANKS-REED, ET AL., Case No. 18-cv-5755 YGR 7 Plaintiffs,

8 v. PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1 RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 9 BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT, ET AL.,

10 Defendant. 11 Having considered the filings to date and the arguments and other submissions at the 12 Pretrial Conference, held on January 10, 2020, for good cause shown the Court enters the 13 following orders. The parties should pay close attention to the filing deadlines as some may have 14 been modified to account for the possibility of jury selection on January 31, 2020. Thus: 15 1. Motion to Stay: Defendant Mateu filed a motion to stay this case pending the outcome of the 16 appeal of this Court’s November 15, 2019 order denying in part defendant’s motion for 17 summary judgment. (Dkt. 64.) In its order, the Court denied defendant’s motion for summary 18 judgment as to plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim, including on qualified immunity, because 19 material factual disputes existed. “[F]or purposes of determining whether [] alleged conduct 20 violates clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known, [the Ninth 21 Circuit] assume[s] the version of the material facts asserted by the non-moving party to be 22 correct.” Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1195 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, taking as true 23 plaintiffs’ version of the material disputed facts—namely, that Mr. Tindle did not possess a 24 gun and was attempting to surrender at the time of the shooting—defendant’s position on 25 appeal is legally frivolous. See Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992). The 26 request for a stay is therefore denied. 27 2. Trial Date and Schedule: The trial of this matter shall trail the trial of Dolby Laboratories 1 Licensing Corporation v. Adobe, Inc., 18-cv-1553 YGR. On January 24, 2020, the Court will 2 advise the parties whether jury selection in the instant case will proceed on January 31, 2020. 3 If not, on January 31, 2020, the Court will advise the parties whether jury selection will 4 proceed on February 7, 2020. If not, on February 5, 2020, the Court will advise whether jury 5 selection will proceed on February 10, 2020. If not, the Court sets a new trial date of March 2, 6 2020. 7 3. Jury Selection shall begin at beginning at 9:00 a.m. All remaining trial days shall begin at 8 8:30 a.m. Counsel shall arrive in court early enough to proceed promptly at 8:00 a.m. Trial 9 schedule will be Monday through Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. with two fifteen-minute 10 breaks. Additional time may be scheduled for matters outside the presence of the jury as 11 necessary and determined by the Court. Sidebars are not permitted. Counsel should be 12 prepared to anticipate issues so that they may be addressed outside of normal trial hours. In 13 this regard, Counsel should also be prepared to reconvene with the Court after the Court’s 14 standing calendars which normally begin at 2:00 p.m. 15 4. The parties shall each be afforded 14 hours to present their case, including opening statements 16 and closing arguments. The parties shall receive daily timesheets advising of the time 17 remaining. Any concerns must be raised immediately or will be waived. The Court shall note 18 on the timesheets that plaintiffs reserve one hour for closing arguments. 19 5. Standard Motions in Limine: The Court hereby orders that: (a) witnesses shall be excluded 20 until testimony is completed; (b) there shall be no reference to or evidence presented of 21 settlement discussions, mediation, or insurance; and (c) there shall be no reference to or 22 evidence presented of wealth or lack thereof of any party except in the punitive damage phase 23 of a case, to the extent it exists. 24 A motion in limine refers “to any motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude 25 anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v. United 26 States, 469 U.S. 38, 40, n. 2 (1984). 27 Plaintiffs filed, untimely, two motions in limine which the Court addresses herein. 1 The Court addresses each of the two categories of evidence plaintiffs seek to exclude, 2 namely:

3 • Evidence that Decedent TINDLE possessed and/or fired a gun during the incident to which 4 Defendant Mateu responded, up to the point of Defendant Mateu’s personal observations of Mr. TINDLE;1 and 5 • Evidence pertaining to Decedent TINDLE’s criminal history, alleged gang affiliation, and 6 prior incarceration. 7 With respect to the first category, plaintiff argues that because defendant Mateu concedes 8 he had no such information, his conduct could not have been informed by such information and is 9 therefore irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. In opposition, defendants rely on the seminal case of 10 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 399, n. 12, that “evidence that may support one version of 11 events over another is relevant and admissible.” 12 Ultimately, the test under a Section 1983 claim is one of the objective “reasonableness of a 13 particular use of force . . . judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather 14 than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. . . .[and] without regard to their underlying intent or 15 motivation.” Id. at 397. The Graham Court merely noted that a jury may consider evidence such 16 as an officer’s “ill-will toward [a] citizen” to assess credibility. Further, the Court weighs whether 17 the proffered evidence makes more probable a fact in dispute. The test though is different for 18 purposes of the claim for negligence which carries a contributory component. 19 Given the various uses of the potential evidence, the Court tentatively finds that in the 20 interests of justice, the Section 1983 claim should be bifurcated from the negligence claim. The 21 evidence would not be admissible in the Section 1983 phase but would be admissible in the next 22 phase. 23 24 25

26 1 Defendants confirm no intent to offer affirmatively evidence of criminal conduct or convictions as to Ciarra Turner or Yolanda Banks-Reed, and the same is hereby ordered. Nothing 27 in this order prohibits the use of such evidence for impeachment purposes to the extent 1 With respect to the second category, the Court finds the evidence is relevant to damages,2 2 and therefore should not be excluded wholesale. This portion of the motion is denied. 3 b. Contingent Motion to Bifurcate Liability from Damages (Dkt. 56) 4 The defendants do not object to bifurcation with respect to damages. The contingent 5 motion is granted. The Court further finds that the damages phase should be tried at the 6 same time as the negligence phase. In addition, the parties shall meet and confer on the 7 issue of phasing the trial by January 15, 2020, and by January 17, 2020, the parties shall 8 file either a joint statement or separate statements on this topic. 9 6. Parties are ordered to admonish witnesses of the Court’s rulings. Failure to comply with a 10 ruling by the Court may result in sanctions, including without limitation the striking of the 11 witness’s entire testimony. 12 7. Witnesses: The parties are limited to calling the witnesses submitted on the list filed for the 13 Pretrial Conference. Upon a showing of good cause, including for rebuttal or impeachment 14 purposes, additional witnesses will only be allowed by Court order. 15 8.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Luce v. United States
469 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Banks-Reed v. Bay Area Rapid Transit, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-reed-v-bay-area-rapid-transit-cand-2020.