1 2 3 6 7 ANDY MARTIN, Case No. 19-cv-01227-EMC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE AMENDED EXHIBIT 9 v. LISTS
10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Docket Nos. 87, 89 11 Defendants.
12 13 14 Below are the Court’s rulings on the parties’ exhibits. 15 17 18 Dated: May 6, 2021 19 20 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 21 United States District Judge
22 23 24 25 26 27 1 3 1 Photographs of P’s injuries Rule 403 objection overruled. 4 2 Excerpt from Duty Manual (Use of Relevance objection overruled. Ruling on 5 the Police Vehicle) remaining objections (hearsay and foundation) 6 deferred. Regarding hearsay, the Duty Manual 7 may be admissible as long as the necessary 8 predicate is laid. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 9 801(d)(2) (statement of party-opponent); Fed. 10 R. Evid. 803(6) (business record); 803(8) 11 (public record). The Duty Manual is also at 12 issue in Exs. 3-4. 13 3 Excerpt from Duty Manual Relevance objection overruled. Ruling on 14 (Traffic Accidents) remaining objections (hearsay and foundation) 15 deferred. See Ex. 2. 16 4 Excerpt from Duty Manual (use of Relevance objection deferred. As a facial 17 force) matter, the only policies that seem to be 18 relevant are those on the use of the police 19 vehicle (which is duplicative of Ex. 2 above), 20 the reporting of force, and the review of the use 21 of force. Ruling on remaining objections 22 (hearsay and foundation) also deferred. See Ex. 23 2. 24 5 Excerpt from Cal. Comm’n on Relevance objection overruled. Ruling on 25 Peace Officer Standards and remaining objections (hearsay and foundation) 26 Training (POST), Basic Workbook deferred. See Ex. 2. 27 Series, Student Materials, 2 Operations (e.g., defensive 3 driving, factors affecting vehicle 4 operations, emergency driving, 5 operating emergency response 6 vehicles, vehicle pursuits, vehicle 7 dynamics, vehicle control 8 techniques) 9 6 Scene photographs Rule 403 objection overruled. 10 7 Video of operation of police Relevance and hearsay objections overruled. 11 vehicle (not on the day of the Ruling on the remaining objection (foundation) 12 incident) deferred. Statements on the video are not 13 describing or explaining an event or condition, 14 and are not made to prove the truth of their 15 content. Instead, the statements on the video 16 are largely directions given to the person 17 operating the vehicle to provide context. 18 8 Video from Officer Gutierrez’s Ruling deferred. The Court cannot assess the 19 body-worn camera relevance, Rule 403, hearsay, and foundation 20 objections because Plaintiff has not designated 21 what portions of the 28-minute video he seeks 22 to admit into evidence. The video itself is not 23 hearsay but statements made on the video may 24 or may not be hearsay – e.g., certain statements 25 on the video may be subject to exceptions such 26 as present sense impression. See United States 27 v. Alexander, 331 F.3d 116, 123 (D.C. Cir. 2 held that, if video includes an officer (not 3 Officer Ribeiro) falsely telling the cousin that 4 Mr. Martin admitted he had a weapon or that a 5 weapon had been found, that evidence is not 6 permitted unless the door is opened (e.g., for 7 impeachment). See PTC Order at 20 8 (addressing D’s MIL No. 6). 9 9 Excerpts from report authored by Plaintiff has stated (in response to Defendants’ 10 IA Investigator, Officer Peroutka MIL No. 5) that he does not intend to offer the 11 conclusions of the report into evidence. 12 Relevance objection overruled. Remaining 13 objections (Rule 403, hearsay, and foundation) 14 deferred. Regarding hearsay, the report itself 15 may qualify as a public record under Rule 16 803(8); alternatively, the report may be a 17 statement of party-opponent (as to the City at 18 least). However, the report may or may not 19 contain hearsay. To the extent the report 20 contains statements from Officer Ribeiro, those 21 would be statements of a party-opponent under 22 Rule 801(d)(2) as to Officer Ribeiro and may be 23 statements of a party-opponent as to the City. 24 See PTC Order at 18-20 (addressing D’s MIL 25 No. 5). See, e.g., Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 26 523, 541 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2006) (in hostile work 27 environment case, holding that district court did 2 enumerated the agency's findings that, among 3 other things, the administrative staff at Pelican 4 Bay had not responded appropriately to the 5 concerns expressed by female officers about 6 exhibitionist masturbation, and the institution 7 had not taken adequate steps to correct the 8 problem”); Jessup v. Miami-Dade Cty., 697 F. 9 Supp. 2d 1312, 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (stating 10 that, “while ‘factual findings’ in internal affairs 11 reports are generally admissible under an 12 exception to the hearsay rule, Fed. R. Evid. 13 803(8), summaries of interviews that are 14 contained in those reports are also double 15 hearsay that cannot be admitted at trial or 16 considered on summary judgment”); Murphy v. 17 Metro. Transp. Auth., 548 F. Supp. 2d 29, 43 18 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (stating that “internal police 19 investigations – when they are relevant – are 20 presumed admissible in a civil case as public 21 record exceptions to the hearsay rule”). 22 10 Computer-aided dispatch Relevance objection overruled. The phone 23 number of the third party should be redacted. 24 11 Video from Officer Serrano’s Ruling deferred. The Court cannot assess the 25 body-worn camera relevance, Rule 403, and hearsay objections 26 because Plaintiff has not designated what 27 portions of the 8-minute video he seeks to 2 hearsay but statements made on the video may 3 or may not be hearsay. See Ex. 8. 4 12 Santa Clara Valley medical Ruling deferred. The Court cannot assess the 5 records relevance, Rule 403, and hearsay objections 6 because Plaintiff has not designated what 7 portions of the 400+ pages of records he seeks 8 to admit into evidence. Regarding hearsay, the 9 medical records may be admissible as business 10 records; however, the records may or may not 11 contain hearsay. Statements of Mr. Martin are 12 not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2) because 13 they are his own statements and not those of a 14 party-opponent. Absent narrowing of what Mr. 15 Martin seeks to admit, Court cannot determine 16 which, if any, exceptions might apply. 17 13 Santa Clara Regional medical Ruling deferred. The Court cannot assess the 18 records relevance, Rule 403, and hearsay objections 19 because Plaintiff has not designated what 20 portions of the almost 500 pages of records he 21 seeks to admit into evidence. Regarding 22 hearsay, the medical records may be admissible 23 as business records; however, the records may 24 or may not contain hearsay. Statements of Mr. 25 Martin are not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2) 26 because they are his own statements and not 27 those of a party-opponent. See Ex. 12. 2 organs, including the pelvic area objection if the exhibit were to be used as a 3 (exhibit used in Dr. Yun demonstrative only; Plaintiff has confirmed that 4 deposition) the exhibit is to be used as a demonstrative 5 only. 6 15 Expert report of Dr. Smith Hearsay objection sustained. However, 7 (biomechanical engineer opining Plaintiff may use the report to refresh 8 on injury causation) recollection. 9 16 Exhibits from Dr. Smith’s expert Ruling on relevance, Rule 403, and hearsay 10 report (syncing of video from objections deferred. Regarding hearsay, the 11 Officer Ribeiro and Officer videos are not hearsay but statements on the 12 Purnell’s body-worn cameras) videos may or may not be hearsay and may be 13 subject to hearsay exceptions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 6 7 ANDY MARTIN, Case No. 19-cv-01227-EMC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE AMENDED EXHIBIT 9 v. LISTS
10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Docket Nos. 87, 89 11 Defendants.
12 13 14 Below are the Court’s rulings on the parties’ exhibits. 15 17 18 Dated: May 6, 2021 19 20 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 21 United States District Judge
22 23 24 25 26 27 1 3 1 Photographs of P’s injuries Rule 403 objection overruled. 4 2 Excerpt from Duty Manual (Use of Relevance objection overruled. Ruling on 5 the Police Vehicle) remaining objections (hearsay and foundation) 6 deferred. Regarding hearsay, the Duty Manual 7 may be admissible as long as the necessary 8 predicate is laid. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 9 801(d)(2) (statement of party-opponent); Fed. 10 R. Evid. 803(6) (business record); 803(8) 11 (public record). The Duty Manual is also at 12 issue in Exs. 3-4. 13 3 Excerpt from Duty Manual Relevance objection overruled. Ruling on 14 (Traffic Accidents) remaining objections (hearsay and foundation) 15 deferred. See Ex. 2. 16 4 Excerpt from Duty Manual (use of Relevance objection deferred. As a facial 17 force) matter, the only policies that seem to be 18 relevant are those on the use of the police 19 vehicle (which is duplicative of Ex. 2 above), 20 the reporting of force, and the review of the use 21 of force. Ruling on remaining objections 22 (hearsay and foundation) also deferred. See Ex. 23 2. 24 5 Excerpt from Cal. Comm’n on Relevance objection overruled. Ruling on 25 Peace Officer Standards and remaining objections (hearsay and foundation) 26 Training (POST), Basic Workbook deferred. See Ex. 2. 27 Series, Student Materials, 2 Operations (e.g., defensive 3 driving, factors affecting vehicle 4 operations, emergency driving, 5 operating emergency response 6 vehicles, vehicle pursuits, vehicle 7 dynamics, vehicle control 8 techniques) 9 6 Scene photographs Rule 403 objection overruled. 10 7 Video of operation of police Relevance and hearsay objections overruled. 11 vehicle (not on the day of the Ruling on the remaining objection (foundation) 12 incident) deferred. Statements on the video are not 13 describing or explaining an event or condition, 14 and are not made to prove the truth of their 15 content. Instead, the statements on the video 16 are largely directions given to the person 17 operating the vehicle to provide context. 18 8 Video from Officer Gutierrez’s Ruling deferred. The Court cannot assess the 19 body-worn camera relevance, Rule 403, hearsay, and foundation 20 objections because Plaintiff has not designated 21 what portions of the 28-minute video he seeks 22 to admit into evidence. The video itself is not 23 hearsay but statements made on the video may 24 or may not be hearsay – e.g., certain statements 25 on the video may be subject to exceptions such 26 as present sense impression. See United States 27 v. Alexander, 331 F.3d 116, 123 (D.C. Cir. 2 held that, if video includes an officer (not 3 Officer Ribeiro) falsely telling the cousin that 4 Mr. Martin admitted he had a weapon or that a 5 weapon had been found, that evidence is not 6 permitted unless the door is opened (e.g., for 7 impeachment). See PTC Order at 20 8 (addressing D’s MIL No. 6). 9 9 Excerpts from report authored by Plaintiff has stated (in response to Defendants’ 10 IA Investigator, Officer Peroutka MIL No. 5) that he does not intend to offer the 11 conclusions of the report into evidence. 12 Relevance objection overruled. Remaining 13 objections (Rule 403, hearsay, and foundation) 14 deferred. Regarding hearsay, the report itself 15 may qualify as a public record under Rule 16 803(8); alternatively, the report may be a 17 statement of party-opponent (as to the City at 18 least). However, the report may or may not 19 contain hearsay. To the extent the report 20 contains statements from Officer Ribeiro, those 21 would be statements of a party-opponent under 22 Rule 801(d)(2) as to Officer Ribeiro and may be 23 statements of a party-opponent as to the City. 24 See PTC Order at 18-20 (addressing D’s MIL 25 No. 5). See, e.g., Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 26 523, 541 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2006) (in hostile work 27 environment case, holding that district court did 2 enumerated the agency's findings that, among 3 other things, the administrative staff at Pelican 4 Bay had not responded appropriately to the 5 concerns expressed by female officers about 6 exhibitionist masturbation, and the institution 7 had not taken adequate steps to correct the 8 problem”); Jessup v. Miami-Dade Cty., 697 F. 9 Supp. 2d 1312, 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (stating 10 that, “while ‘factual findings’ in internal affairs 11 reports are generally admissible under an 12 exception to the hearsay rule, Fed. R. Evid. 13 803(8), summaries of interviews that are 14 contained in those reports are also double 15 hearsay that cannot be admitted at trial or 16 considered on summary judgment”); Murphy v. 17 Metro. Transp. Auth., 548 F. Supp. 2d 29, 43 18 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (stating that “internal police 19 investigations – when they are relevant – are 20 presumed admissible in a civil case as public 21 record exceptions to the hearsay rule”). 22 10 Computer-aided dispatch Relevance objection overruled. The phone 23 number of the third party should be redacted. 24 11 Video from Officer Serrano’s Ruling deferred. The Court cannot assess the 25 body-worn camera relevance, Rule 403, and hearsay objections 26 because Plaintiff has not designated what 27 portions of the 8-minute video he seeks to 2 hearsay but statements made on the video may 3 or may not be hearsay. See Ex. 8. 4 12 Santa Clara Valley medical Ruling deferred. The Court cannot assess the 5 records relevance, Rule 403, and hearsay objections 6 because Plaintiff has not designated what 7 portions of the 400+ pages of records he seeks 8 to admit into evidence. Regarding hearsay, the 9 medical records may be admissible as business 10 records; however, the records may or may not 11 contain hearsay. Statements of Mr. Martin are 12 not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2) because 13 they are his own statements and not those of a 14 party-opponent. Absent narrowing of what Mr. 15 Martin seeks to admit, Court cannot determine 16 which, if any, exceptions might apply. 17 13 Santa Clara Regional medical Ruling deferred. The Court cannot assess the 18 records relevance, Rule 403, and hearsay objections 19 because Plaintiff has not designated what 20 portions of the almost 500 pages of records he 21 seeks to admit into evidence. Regarding 22 hearsay, the medical records may be admissible 23 as business records; however, the records may 24 or may not contain hearsay. Statements of Mr. 25 Martin are not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2) 26 because they are his own statements and not 27 those of a party-opponent. See Ex. 12. 2 organs, including the pelvic area objection if the exhibit were to be used as a 3 (exhibit used in Dr. Yun demonstrative only; Plaintiff has confirmed that 4 deposition) the exhibit is to be used as a demonstrative 5 only. 6 15 Expert report of Dr. Smith Hearsay objection sustained. However, 7 (biomechanical engineer opining Plaintiff may use the report to refresh 8 on injury causation) recollection. 9 16 Exhibits from Dr. Smith’s expert Ruling on relevance, Rule 403, and hearsay 10 report (syncing of video from objections deferred. Regarding hearsay, the 11 Officer Ribeiro and Officer videos are not hearsay but statements on the 12 Purnell’s body-worn cameras) videos may or may not be hearsay and may be 13 subject to hearsay exceptions. 14 17 Expert report of Dr. Smith Hearsay objection sustained. However, 15 (rebuttal) Plaintiff may use the report to refresh 16 recollection. 17 18 Exhibits from Dr. Smith’s expert Hearsay objection as to Exhibits 3 and 4 18 report (rebuttal) sustained. Exhibits 3 and 4 are essentially 19 continuations of the expert report. Ruling 20 deferred as to the Otte article (“Use of Throw 21 Distances of Pedestrians and Bicyclists as Part 22 of a Scientific Accident Reconstruction 23 Method”). Defendants have objected on the 24 basis of relevance, Rule 403, and hearsay. 25 Regarding hearsay, the article may be 26 admissible under Rule 803(18) (learned 27 treatise). But if the article is hearsay, then Rule 2 in the particular field would reasonably rely on 3 those kinds of facts or data in forming an 4 opinion on the subject, they need not be 5 admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But 6 if the facts or data would otherwise be 7 inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may 8 disclose them to the jury only if their probative 9 value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion 10 substantially outweighs their prejudicial 11 effect.”). 12 13 19 Still frame (left-side mirror) from Defendants: No objection if Flower exhibits 14 Officer Ribeiro’s body-worn based on body-worn camera are admitted. Exs. 15 camera (exhibit used in Dr. Smith 529-44. Plaintiffs did not object. 16 deposition) 17 20 Expert report of Mr. Bard (video) Hearsay objection sustained. However, 18 Plaintiff may use the report to refresh 19 recollection. 20 21 Exhibit from Mr. Bard’s expert Defendants: No objection if Flower exhibits 21 report (slowed video from Officer based on body-worn camera are admitted. Exs. 22 Purnell’s body-worn camera) 529-44. Plaintiffs did not object. 23 22 Exhibit from Mr. Bard’s expert Defendants: No objection if Flower exhibits 24 report (slowed video from Officer based on body-worn camera are admitted. Exs. 25 Ribeiro’s body-worn camera) 529-44. Plaintiffs did not object. 26 23 Exhibit from Mr. Bard’s expert Defendants: No objection if Flower exhibits 27 report (synchronized video from based on body-worn camera are admitted. Exs. 2 24 Exhibit from Mr. Bard’s expert Defendants: No objection if Flower exhibits 3 report (still frames from Officer based on body-worn camera are admitted. Exs. 4 Ribeiro’s body-worn camera) 529-44. Plaintiffs did not object. 5 25 Exhibit from Mr. Bard’s expert Defendants: No objection if Flower exhibits 6 report (still frames from Officer based on body-worn camera are admitted. Exs. 7 Purnell’s body-worn camera) 529-44. Plaintiffs did not object. 8 26 Expert report from Mr. Flower Hearsay objection sustained. However, 9 (City’s video expert) Plaintiff may use the report to refresh 10 recollection or to impeach. 11 27 Expert repot from Mr. Johnson Hearsay objection sustained. However, 12 (damages) Plaintiff may use the report to refresh 13 recollection. 14 28 Traffic Collision Report (authored Hearsay objection deferred. Report may be 15 in part by Officer Minten and in admissible under Rule 803(6) or (8); 16 part by Officer Ribeiro) alternatively, report may be admissible as a 17 statement of a party-opponent (as to the City at 18 least). However, statements in the report may 19 or may not be hearsay. Statements made by 20 Officer Ribeiro are not hearsay as to Officer 21 Ribeiro because they are statements by a party- 22 opponent; they may be statements by a party- 23 opponent as to the City. Statements made by 24 Mr. Martin are hearsay if offered by Mr. 25 Martin. Document may be used to refresh 26 recollection or impeach. 27 29 Excerpts from report authored by Plaintiff has stated (in response to Defendants’ 2 (partially duplicative of Ex. 9) conclusions of the report into evidence. 3 Relevance objection overruled. Remaining 4 objections (Rule 403 and hearsay) deferred. 5 Regarding hearsay, the report itself qualifies as 6 a public record under Rule 803(8) or is a 7 statement of a party-opponent (as to the City at 8 least) once foundation is laid. However, the 9 report may or may not contain hearsay 10 statements. To the extent the report contains 11 statements from Officer Ribeiro, those would 12 be statements of a party-opponent under Rule 13 801(d)(2) as to Officer Ribeiro; they may be 14 statements of a party-opponent as to the City. 15 Statements made by Mr. Martin are hearsay if 16 offered by Plaintiff. Document may be used to 17 refresh recollection or impeach. 18 30 Memos by Sgt. Sciba and Lt. Plaintiff has stated (in response to Defendants’ 19 Lagorio (internal investigation) MIL No. 5) that he does not intend to offer the 20 conclusions of the memos into evidence. 21 Relevance objection overruled. Remaining 22 objections (Rule 403, hearsay, and foundation) 23 deferred. Regarding hearsay, the memos 24 qualify as public records under Rule 803(8) or 25 are statements of a party-opponent (as to the 26 City at least) if proper foundation is laid. 27 However, the memos may or may not contain 2 contain statements from Officer Ribeiro, those 3 would be statements of a party-opponent under 4 Rule 801(d)(2) as to Officer Ribeiro; they may 5 be statements of a party-opponent as to the 6 City. Statements made by Mr. Martin are 7 hearsay if offered by Martin. Document may 8 be used to refresh recollection or impeach. 9 31 Memo by Lt. Lagorio (internal Plaintiff has stated (in response to Defendants’ 10 investigation) MIL No. 5) that he does not intend to offer the 11 conclusions of the memos into evidence. 12 Relevance objection overruled. Remaining 13 objections (Rule 403, hearsay, and foundation) 14 deferred. Regarding hearsay, the memo 15 qualifies as a public record under Rule 803(8) 16 or is a statement of a party-opponent (as to the 17 City at least) if proper foundation is laid. 18 However, the memo may or may not contain 19 hearsay statements. To the extent the memo 20 contains statements from Officer Ribeiro, those 21 would be statements of a party-opponent under 22 Rule 801(d)(2) as to Officer Ribeiro; they may 23 be statements of a party-opponent as to the 24 City. Document may be used to refresh 25 recollection or impeach. 26 32 Incident report by Officer Relevant objection overruled. Remaining 27 Gutierrez objections (Rule 403 and hearsay) deferred. 2 public record under Rule 803(8) or is a 3 statement of a party-opponent (as to the City at 4 least if proper foundation is laid. However, the 5 report may or may not contain hearsay 6 statements. In any event, document may be 7 used to refresh recollection or impeach. 8 33 Incident report by Officer Purnell Hearsay objection deferred. Regarding hearsay, 9 the report qualifies as a public record under 10 Rule 803(8) or is a statement of a party- 11 opponent (as to the City at least) if proper 12 foundation is laid. Document may be used to 13 refresh recollection or impeach. 14 34 Incident report by Sgt. Sciba Hearsay objection deferred. Regarding hearsay, 15 the report qualifies as a public record under 16 Rule 803(8) or is a statement of a party- 17 opponent (as to the City at least) if a proper 18 foundation is laid. However, the report may or 19 may not contain hearsay statements. 20 Statements made by Mr. Martin are hearsay if 21 offered by Mr. Martin. Document may be used 22 to refresh recollection or impeach. 23 35 Incident report by Officer Ribeiro Hearsay objection overruled as to Officer 24 Ribeiro (statement of party-opponent). Hearsay 25 objection deferred as to the City. With respect 26 to the City, the report qualifies as a public 27 record under Rule 803(8) or is a statement of a 2 Document may be used to refresh recollection 3 or impeach. 4 5 500 Computer-aided dispatch Essentially the same as Pl.’s Ex. 10. Relevance 6 and Rule 403 objections overruled. 7 501 Dispatch recording (first 6 minutes No objection. 8 only) 9 502 Certified transcript of dispatch Rule 403 and hearsay objections overruled. 10 recording (first 6 minutes only) Regarding hearsay, document is not offered for 11 truth of the matter asserted but rather for effect 12 on listener (Officer Ribeiro). 13 503 Video from body-worn camera of No objection. 14 Officer Ribeiro 15 504 Video from body-worn camera of No objection. 16 Officer Purnell 17 505 Scene photograph No objection. 18 506 Scene photograph No objection. 19 507 Scene photograph No objection. 20 508 Scene photograph No objection. 21 509 Scene photograph No objection. 22 510 Scene photograph No objection. 23 511 Scene photograph No objection. 24 512 Scene photograph No objection. 25 513 Scene photograph No objection. 26 514 Scene photograph No objection. 27 517 Santa Clara County Crime Relevance and Rule 403 objections overruled. 2 Laboratory toxicology report Ruling on hearsay objection deferred. 3 Document may be admissible as business 4 record if proper foundation is laid. 5 528 Lyft records Relevance and Rule 403 objections overruled. 6 Ruling on hearsay objection deferred. 7 Document may be admissible as evidence of 8 absence of business record. See Rule 803(7). 9 529 Still image from body-worn No objection. 10 camera 11 530 Still image from body-worn No objection. 12 camera 13 531 Still image from body-worn No objection. 14 camera 15 532 Still image from body-worn No objection. 16 camera 17 533 Still image from body-worn No objection. 18 camera 19 534 Still image from body-worn No objection. 20 camera 21 535 Still image from body-worn No objection. 22 camera 23 536 Still image from body-worn No objection. 24 camera 25 537 Slowed-down video from body- No objection. 26 worn camera of Officer Ribeiro 27 538 Video from body-worn camera of No objection. 2 Officer Ribeiro 3 539 Slowed-down video from body- No objection. 4 worn camera of Officer Purnell 5 540 Video from body-worn camera of No objection. 6 Officer Purnell 7 541 Slowed-down video from body- No objection. 8 worn camera of Officer Ribeiro 9 542 Synced video from body-worn No objection. 10 cameras 11 543 Synced video from body-worn No objection. 12 cameras 13 544 Slowed-down video from body- No objection. 14 worn camera of Officer Ribeiro 15 545 San Jose Regional Medical Center No objection. 16 Diagnostic Imaging (CD) (pelvis 17 and ankle) 18 546 Valley Medical Center Diagnostic No objection. 19 Imaging (CD) (ankle and chest) 20 547 Valley Medical Center Diagnostic No objection. 21 Imaging (CD) (ankle and knee) 22 548 Valley Medical Center Diagnostic No objection. 23 Imaging (CD) (hand, wrist, pelvis) 24 549 Excerpts from Santa Clara Valley No objection. 25 Health & Hospital System 26 550 Plaintiff’s responses to Rogs Nos. Rog No. 10 asks how many times Plaintiff 27 10 and 11 contends Officer Ribeiro ran over him; Rog No. 2 11 asks Plaintiff to identify facts to support the 3 contention that the officer ran him over more 4 than one time. Objections to rogs (vague and 5 ambiguous) overruled. 6 551 Plaintiff’s responses to Rogs Nos. Rog No. 9 asks Plaintiff to state facts to support 7 9 and 12 responses to RFAs. Plaintiff stated, inter alia, 8 that he had already left the mall and was 9 walking when officers responded and that he 10 told officers he could not see behind him and 11 did not know who was following him. Rog No. 12 12 asks Plaintiff to identify dates of 13 incarceration in the past 10 years. Objection to 14 Rog No. 9 (vague and ambiguous) overruled. 15 Objection to Rog No. 12 has been resolved by 16 Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s MIL No. 1. 17 552 Plaintiff’s responses to RFAs Nos. RFAs ask Plaintiff to admit that he was running 18 3, 4, and 7-10 on the trail to evade the police, that he knew he 19 was being pursued by the police, and that he 20 had been previously been convicted of certain 21 crimes. Objection to RFAs re evading or being 22 pursued by the police (vague and ambiguous) 23 are overruled. Objection to prior conviction 24 evidence has been resolved by Court’s ruling on 25 Plaintiff’s MIL No. 1. 26 27