1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7 RONALD CUPP, Case No. 20-cv-03456-PJH 8 Plaintiff,
9 v. FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER
10 ANDREW SMITH, 11 Defendant. 12
13 14 Pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this final pretrial 15 order is hereby entered and shall control the course of the trial unless modified by a 16 subsequent order. 17 I. Motions in Limine 18 A. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 19 Plaintiff’s first motion in limine to exclude any visual depictions of the Arlington 20 Avenue property other than the photographs defendant produced in discovery is 21 DENIED. However, both parties represented that they did not intend to present photos 22 besides those taken on February 15, 2019, so the motion is moot. Only the photos of the 23 property taken on February 15, 2019, are admissible. 24 B. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 25 Plaintiff’s second motion in limine to exclude any evidence or testimony of the 26 condition of the Arlington Avenue property except for the property’s condition on February 27 15, 2019, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant may introduce evidence 1 to Smith’s inspection on February 15, 2019. 2 C. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3 3 Plaintiff’s third motion in limine to exclude evidence or testimony that plaintiff is a 4 “sovereign citizen,” or that he is affiliated with the “sovereign citizen movement,” is 5 GRANTED except and unless the door is opened through testimony. 6 D. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 7 Plaintiff’s fourth motion in limine to prohibit defendant from presenting expert 8 witness testimony from any witness is GRANTED. Because neither party disclosed 9 experts in discovery, neither party may introduce expert or opinion testimony. 10 E. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 5 11 Plaintiff’s fifth motion in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s prior criminal 12 history is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant represented that he only 13 intends to introduce evidence of plaintiff’s most recent convictions, including his 14 conviction for multiple counts of forgery (People v. Cupp, No. A142895, 2017 WL 15 4769068 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2017) (unpublished)), and another for possession of 16 marijuana (People v. Cupp, No. A142663, 2018 WL 2998700, (Cal. Ct. App. June 15, 17 2018) (unpublished)). The former conviction, for multiple counts of attempting to record a 18 false or forged document (Cal. Pen. Code § 115(a)) and multiple counts of forgery 19 (§ 470(d)), may be introduced for impeachment purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of 20 Evidence 609(a)(2) because the underlying crimes involved proof of “a dishonest act or 21 false statement.” The latter conviction, for possession of marijuana in violation of 22 California Health & Safety Code § 11357(c), may not be introduced for impeachment 23 purposes because the underlying crime was punishable by imprisonment for less than 24 one year and the offense does not bear on plaintiff’s character for truthfulness. See Fed. 25 R. Evid. 609(a)(1). 26 F. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 6 27 Plaintiff’s sixth motion in limine to exclude evidence that Plaintiff was deemed a 1 evidence will be excluded subject to an evidentiary proffer of its relevance by defendant 2 based on evidence at trial. 3 G. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 4 Defendant’s first motion in limine to prohibit plaintiff from introducing evidence or 5 testimony regarding economic damages is GRANTED. Plaintiff may not proceed on a 6 theory of damages that involves the recovery of his expenses to bring his property into 7 compliance following the County of Sonoma’s administrative process regarding building 8 and zoning code violations. To permit plaintiff to proceed on such a theory would 9 suggest an infirmity in the administrative process and appeal which he lost, an issue that 10 cannot appropriately be presented in this forum. It would also reward him for engaging in 11 construction without the required permits. Accordingly and additionally, the testimony of 12 David Harris, plaintiff’s proposed witness regarding work done to resolve non-compliance 13 with building and zoning codes at the Arlington Avenue property, is irrelevant. 14 H. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2 15 Defendant’s second motion in limine to preclude evidence, testimony, or argument 16 related to general damages or emotional distress damages is DENIED. Both parties 17 acknowledge that these damages are available if an emotional injury has been inflicted 18 by virtue of the constitutional violation. The court cautions plaintiff that any evidence 19 presented must be tethered to the incursion by defendant onto the property and not to 20 plaintiff’s subsequent efforts to bring his property into compliance with County 21 requirements. 22 I. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3 23 Defendant’s third motion in limine to prohibit testimony or evidence of any expert 24 witness is GRANTED for the same reasons as the court granted plaintiff’s fourth motion 25 in limine. 26 J. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4 27 Defendant’s fourth motion in limine to exclude evidence or argument concerning the fact 1 indemnifying him against any liability is unopposed and is GRANTED. 2 II. Voir Dire 3 As discussed at the pretrial conference, the parties’ joint proposed additional voir 4 dire questions (Dkt. 109) will be incorporated into the court’s voir dire. The court will 5 conduct the voir dire. After the court’s questioning, each side shall have 15 minutes to 6 question the panel, but they may not use that time to argue their case. 7 The court will empanel seven (7) jurors. Each side shall have three peremptory 8 challenges. 9 III. Verdict Form 10 The parties are ordered to meet and confer and file a new proposed joint verdict 11 form no later than March 17, 2023. As discussed at the pretrial conference, the new 12 proposed verdict form must include factual interrogatories related to 1) the scope of the 13 search/inspection, 2) whether defendant entered the curtilage of the home, 3) whether 14 the structure at issue was at the time being used as a garage or living space, 4) whether 15 defendant reasonably believed that the property was abandoned on the day in question, 16 and 5) whether plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area 17 searched/inspected. 18 IV. Jury Instructions 19 The parties are also ordered to meet and confer and file a new set of jury 20 instructions no later than March 17, 2023. The updated instructions should include only 21 the sections designated by the court at the pretrial conference, including the following 22 points of guidance: 23 1. Instruction 1.5 needs more factual background so that it can be used for voir 24 dire purposes. 25 2. Instructions 2.11 and 2.12 will not be used given that no interrogatories or 26 requests for admission have been properly designated for use at trial. 27 3. Instruction 9.3 needs to be revised for greater clarity. Plaintiff shall also brief 1 capacity. 2 4. Instruction 9.12.1, the special instruction defining curtilage, lacks clarity. The 3 court plans to use instead the first two paragraphs of plaintiff’s proposed jury 4 instruction #1. Dkt. 126 at 4. The parties agreed, however, to work further on 5 a joint special instruction regarding curtilage. 6 5. Instruction 5.1 should be edited to strike irrelevant forms of damages. 7 6. Instruction 5.2 should be eliminated as redundant. 8 7. Instruction 5.5 also depends on plaintiff’s briefing regarding whether punitive 9 damages are available against a defendant sued in his official capacity. 10 8.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7 RONALD CUPP, Case No. 20-cv-03456-PJH 8 Plaintiff,
9 v. FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER
10 ANDREW SMITH, 11 Defendant. 12
13 14 Pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this final pretrial 15 order is hereby entered and shall control the course of the trial unless modified by a 16 subsequent order. 17 I. Motions in Limine 18 A. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 19 Plaintiff’s first motion in limine to exclude any visual depictions of the Arlington 20 Avenue property other than the photographs defendant produced in discovery is 21 DENIED. However, both parties represented that they did not intend to present photos 22 besides those taken on February 15, 2019, so the motion is moot. Only the photos of the 23 property taken on February 15, 2019, are admissible. 24 B. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 25 Plaintiff’s second motion in limine to exclude any evidence or testimony of the 26 condition of the Arlington Avenue property except for the property’s condition on February 27 15, 2019, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant may introduce evidence 1 to Smith’s inspection on February 15, 2019. 2 C. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3 3 Plaintiff’s third motion in limine to exclude evidence or testimony that plaintiff is a 4 “sovereign citizen,” or that he is affiliated with the “sovereign citizen movement,” is 5 GRANTED except and unless the door is opened through testimony. 6 D. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 7 Plaintiff’s fourth motion in limine to prohibit defendant from presenting expert 8 witness testimony from any witness is GRANTED. Because neither party disclosed 9 experts in discovery, neither party may introduce expert or opinion testimony. 10 E. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 5 11 Plaintiff’s fifth motion in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s prior criminal 12 history is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant represented that he only 13 intends to introduce evidence of plaintiff’s most recent convictions, including his 14 conviction for multiple counts of forgery (People v. Cupp, No. A142895, 2017 WL 15 4769068 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2017) (unpublished)), and another for possession of 16 marijuana (People v. Cupp, No. A142663, 2018 WL 2998700, (Cal. Ct. App. June 15, 17 2018) (unpublished)). The former conviction, for multiple counts of attempting to record a 18 false or forged document (Cal. Pen. Code § 115(a)) and multiple counts of forgery 19 (§ 470(d)), may be introduced for impeachment purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of 20 Evidence 609(a)(2) because the underlying crimes involved proof of “a dishonest act or 21 false statement.” The latter conviction, for possession of marijuana in violation of 22 California Health & Safety Code § 11357(c), may not be introduced for impeachment 23 purposes because the underlying crime was punishable by imprisonment for less than 24 one year and the offense does not bear on plaintiff’s character for truthfulness. See Fed. 25 R. Evid. 609(a)(1). 26 F. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 6 27 Plaintiff’s sixth motion in limine to exclude evidence that Plaintiff was deemed a 1 evidence will be excluded subject to an evidentiary proffer of its relevance by defendant 2 based on evidence at trial. 3 G. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 4 Defendant’s first motion in limine to prohibit plaintiff from introducing evidence or 5 testimony regarding economic damages is GRANTED. Plaintiff may not proceed on a 6 theory of damages that involves the recovery of his expenses to bring his property into 7 compliance following the County of Sonoma’s administrative process regarding building 8 and zoning code violations. To permit plaintiff to proceed on such a theory would 9 suggest an infirmity in the administrative process and appeal which he lost, an issue that 10 cannot appropriately be presented in this forum. It would also reward him for engaging in 11 construction without the required permits. Accordingly and additionally, the testimony of 12 David Harris, plaintiff’s proposed witness regarding work done to resolve non-compliance 13 with building and zoning codes at the Arlington Avenue property, is irrelevant. 14 H. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2 15 Defendant’s second motion in limine to preclude evidence, testimony, or argument 16 related to general damages or emotional distress damages is DENIED. Both parties 17 acknowledge that these damages are available if an emotional injury has been inflicted 18 by virtue of the constitutional violation. The court cautions plaintiff that any evidence 19 presented must be tethered to the incursion by defendant onto the property and not to 20 plaintiff’s subsequent efforts to bring his property into compliance with County 21 requirements. 22 I. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3 23 Defendant’s third motion in limine to prohibit testimony or evidence of any expert 24 witness is GRANTED for the same reasons as the court granted plaintiff’s fourth motion 25 in limine. 26 J. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4 27 Defendant’s fourth motion in limine to exclude evidence or argument concerning the fact 1 indemnifying him against any liability is unopposed and is GRANTED. 2 II. Voir Dire 3 As discussed at the pretrial conference, the parties’ joint proposed additional voir 4 dire questions (Dkt. 109) will be incorporated into the court’s voir dire. The court will 5 conduct the voir dire. After the court’s questioning, each side shall have 15 minutes to 6 question the panel, but they may not use that time to argue their case. 7 The court will empanel seven (7) jurors. Each side shall have three peremptory 8 challenges. 9 III. Verdict Form 10 The parties are ordered to meet and confer and file a new proposed joint verdict 11 form no later than March 17, 2023. As discussed at the pretrial conference, the new 12 proposed verdict form must include factual interrogatories related to 1) the scope of the 13 search/inspection, 2) whether defendant entered the curtilage of the home, 3) whether 14 the structure at issue was at the time being used as a garage or living space, 4) whether 15 defendant reasonably believed that the property was abandoned on the day in question, 16 and 5) whether plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area 17 searched/inspected. 18 IV. Jury Instructions 19 The parties are also ordered to meet and confer and file a new set of jury 20 instructions no later than March 17, 2023. The updated instructions should include only 21 the sections designated by the court at the pretrial conference, including the following 22 points of guidance: 23 1. Instruction 1.5 needs more factual background so that it can be used for voir 24 dire purposes. 25 2. Instructions 2.11 and 2.12 will not be used given that no interrogatories or 26 requests for admission have been properly designated for use at trial. 27 3. Instruction 9.3 needs to be revised for greater clarity. Plaintiff shall also brief 1 capacity. 2 4. Instruction 9.12.1, the special instruction defining curtilage, lacks clarity. The 3 court plans to use instead the first two paragraphs of plaintiff’s proposed jury 4 instruction #1. Dkt. 126 at 4. The parties agreed, however, to work further on 5 a joint special instruction regarding curtilage. 6 5. Instruction 5.1 should be edited to strike irrelevant forms of damages. 7 6. Instruction 5.2 should be eliminated as redundant. 8 7. Instruction 5.5 also depends on plaintiff’s briefing regarding whether punitive 9 damages are available against a defendant sued in his official capacity. 10 8. Plaintiff’s proposed jury instruction #2 regarding the “knock and talk” rule will be 11 used, but only the first two paragraphs of the proposed instruction. See Dkt. 12 126 at 6. 13 9. The court will not use either side’s proposed jury instruction #3. 14 10. Plaintiff’s proposed jury instruction #4 regarding “plain view” will be used, but 15 only the first paragraph of the proposed instruction. See Dkt. 126 at 11. 16 11. Plaintiff’s proposed jury instruction #5 will not be used. 17 V. Stipulated Facts 18 The parties shall meet and confer about the stipulated facts they intend to provide 19 to the jury. The parties shall also meet and confer about how the jury will receive those 20 stipulated facts, for example, whether the stipulated facts will be read into the record and 21 provided to the jury as a handout. 22 VI. Trial Schedule and Time Limits 23 The duration of the trial shall be five (5) days commencing Monday, April 3, 2023, 24 from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., with two 15-minute breaks each day. Jury selection will 25 occur on the first day, as will opening statements and as much of the presentation of 26 evidence as possible by 4:00 p.m. Each side will be allotted 9 hours for the presentation 27 of their case, excluding only jury selection and instructions. 1 VII. Remaining Claims and Defenses 2 There remains one cause of action against a single defendant in this case, 3 plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment against 4 defendant Andrew Smith. Defendant’s affirmative defenses include (1) qualified 5 immunity, (2) “knock and talk” exception, and the (3) “plain view” exception. Despite 6 counsel’s framing of the “open fields” doctrine as interrelated with the plain view 7 exception, defendant conceded that “open fields” will not be presented to the jury. 8 VIII. Final Comments 9 For any given day of trial, parties must disclose a list of witnesses they intend to 10 call by no later than 6:00 p.m. the evening prior. Neither party may call any witness that 11 does not appear on its witness list except for rebuttal witnesses or witnesses called solely 12 for impeachment purposes. The parties should be in touch with Courtroom Deputy Kelly 13 Collins regarding courtroom technology needs. The items required by this order—revised 14 verdict form, revised instructions, stipulation of facts, and plaintiff’s briefing on punitive 15 damages, are all due no later than March 17, 2023. Defendant may respond to plaintiff’s 16 brief by March 24, 2023. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: March 10, 2023 19 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 20 United States District Judge
22 23 24 25 26 27