Sernas v. Cantrell

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00730
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Adam Bernard Sernas, No. CV-19-00730-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Unknown Cantrell, et al.,

13 Defendants 14 15 Before the Court are the parties’ Motions in Limine. Plaintiff has filed two Motions 16 (Docs. 134 and 135) to which Defendants have filed Responses (Docs. 136 and 137)1. 17 Defendants have filed four Motions (Docs. 130, 131, 132 and 133) to which Plaintiff has 18 filed Responses (Docs. 138, 142, 143, 144.) The Court will address Defendants’ Motions 19 in turn. 20 I. Background2 21 Plaintiff, Adam Sernas filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that 22 Defendants, Arizona State Prison Complex detention officers, violated his Eighth 23 Amendment rights by failing to protect him from violence by other inmates. Plaintiff’s 24 claim is that Defendants Cantrell and Collars were deliberately indifferent to his fears based 25 1 Further clarification of the parties proffered evidence is required for the Court to address 26 Plaintiffs Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the Defendants must come to the Final Pretrial Conference prepared to specify the type of testimony and evidence it seeks 27 to introduce about Plaintiffs drug use and disciplinary history. 2 These brief facts are taken from the Ninth Circuits Memorandum (Dc. 114-1). However, 28 the Court’s Summary Judgment Order more fully describes the background and history of facts leading up to the assault on Plaintiff. See (Doc. 107). 1 upon threats by other inmates and that they failed to protect him. Plaintiff alleges that he 2 repeatedly informed Defendants that he was asked to hold drugs for other inmates but 3 refused to so, which then resulted in threats of harm from other inmates in the general 4 population unit. Plaintiff was in the “Refuse to House” unit when he informed officials of 5 his fears, explaining that if he returned to the general population unit, Barchey, he would 6 face injury or death. When correction officials returned Plaintiff to Barchey, he was 7 attacked. Plaintiff was unable to identify the inmates who threatened him or who actually 8 attacked him. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Cantrell and Collars failed to protect him 9 and failed to investigate the threats. 10 II. Motions in Lime – Legal Standards 11 “Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine 12 rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court’s inherent authority to 13 manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.4 (1984). Motions in 14 limine “allow parties to resolve evidentiary disputes ahead of trial, without first having to 15 present potentially prejudicial evidence in front of a jury.” Brodit v. Cabra, 350 F.3d 985, 16 1004–05 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Generally, motions in limine that seek 17 exclusion of broad and unspecific categories of evidence are disfavored. See Sperberg v. 18 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975). Motions in limine are 19 “entirely within the discretion of the Court.” Jaynes Corp. v. American Safety Indem. Co., 20 2014 WL 1154180, at *1 (D. Nev. March 20, 2014) (citing Luce, 469 U.S. at 41–42). 21 Moreover, “[a] motion in limine is not the proper vehicle for seeking a dispositive ruling 22 on a claim, particularly after the deadline for filing such motions has passed.” Hana Fin., 23 Inc. v. Hana Bank, 735 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2013), aff’d, 135 S. Ct. 907, 190 L. Ed. 24 2d 800 (2015) (citing Dubner v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 266 F.3d 959, 968 (9th Cir. 2001). 25 Motions in limine are “provisional.” Goodman v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 963 26 F.Supp.2d 1036 (D. Nev. 2013), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and dismissed in part on other 27 grounds, 613 F. App’x 610 (9th Cir. 2015). 28 . . . . . 1 The Court issues its rulings on the record currently before it. Therefore, rulings on 2 such motions “are not binding on the trial judge [who] may always change his [or her] 3 mind during the course of a trial.” Id. (quoting Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 4 n.3 (2000) (citing Luce, 469 U.S. at 41 (noting that in limine rulings are always subject to 5 change, especially if the evidence unfolds in an unanticipated manner))). “Denial of a 6 motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion 7 will be admitted to trial. Denial merely means that without the context of trial, the court is 8 unable to determine whether the evidence in question should be excluded.” Id. (quoting 9 Ind. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004)). 10 A. Burden of Proof 11 Motions to exclude evidence require the party seeking exclusion to inform the Court 12 of the evidence’s substance with specificity. See Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(2); United States v. 13 Bradford, 905 F.3d 497, 505 (7th Cir. 2018)(finding a motion in limine did not satisfy Rule 14 103(a)’s specificity requirement by failing to identify the specific evidence or explain its 15 admissibility).3 The party offering the evidence and testimony at trial bears the burden of 16 proof that it is relevant under Rule 401 and not prejudicial under Rule 403. Federal Rule 17 of Evidence 401 provides that “[e]vidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact 18 more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and the fact is of consequence 19 in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Under Rule 402, relevant evidence is 20 admissible unless otherwise provided. Fed. R. Evid. 402. However, all relevant evidence 21 is subject to the balancing test set forth by Rule 403. That is, a court “may exclude relevant 22 evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of 23 the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, 24 wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. 25 . . . . . 26 . . . . . 27

28 3 Except where otherwise noted, all “Rule” references are to the Federal Rules of Evidence. 1 III. Defendants’ Motions in Limine A. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 (Doc. 130) Re: Plaintiff’s Past 2 Medical Bills 3 Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff from introducing any evidence or witnesses 4 regarding his medical bills prior to his release from prison, arguing that Plaintiff did not 5 timely disclose this evidence, and he failed to provide a computation of medical damages, 6 including a proper itemization of expenses. (Doc. 130 at 1−2.) They also argue that the 7 collateral source rule bars Plaintiff from seeking damages for medical expenses incurred 8 while he was in state custody because his claims are against the State, and the State, not a 9 collateral source, was required by law to pay those expenses. (Id.) 10 1. Disclosure Issues 11 The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff did not disclose his in-custody medical bills 12 to Defendants until April 29, 2025, well past the deadline to supplement disclosures and 13 discovery, and he did not include these expenses in any prior computation of damages. 14 Plaintiff presents evidence, though, that for the first time on March 13, 2025, he received 15 notice from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 16 (AHCCCSA) that AHCCCS paid those expenses and was seeking to recover its costs by 17 asserting a lien/claim to any damages Plaintiff received in settlement of this action. 18 (Doc. 138-1.) Plaintiff argues that counsel previously thought ADCRR paid all Plaintiff’s 19 in-custody medical expenses, so Plaintiff had no reason to seek compensation for those 20 costs in this action. (Doc. 138 at 3.) Then, after receiving notice that AHCCCS paid these 21 bills and was now asserting a lien for repayment, Plaintiff “obtained the bills as quickly as 22 possible” and disclosed them to Defendants with the first draft of the Joint Proposed 23 Pretrial Order (JPPO), thereby giving Defendants an opportunity to consider the AHCCCS 24 lien prior to the final JPPO and ahead of trial preparation. (Id.) 25 Under these facts, Plaintiff’s delayed disclosure was not purposeful and was 26 substantially justified, and Defendants have not demonstrated any prejudice from the late 27 disclosure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (sanctions for failure to disclose do not apply if the 28 failure was “substantially justified or is harmless”). The proffered evidence also includes 1 itemized records of Plaintiff’s medical expenses, so Defendants were not harmed by 2 Plaintiff’s failure to previously provide a computation of this category of damages. 3 2. Collateral Source Rule 4 The collateral source rule “permits an injured party to recover medical expenses 5 from a tortfeasor, notwithstanding reimbursement of such expenses by the injured party 6 from a third party, if such reimbursement is from a ‘collateral source’ and not from a 7 tortfeasor.” Siverson v. United States, 710 F.2d 557, 559 (9th Cir. 1983). The rule serves 8 to “prohibit[] tortfeasors from avoiding liability for damages in situations in which an 9 injured party has been compensated by a third party.” Sw. Fiduciary, Inc. v. Arizona Health 10 Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 249 P.3d 1104, 1107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). This 11 means that a plaintiff who has already received compensation for his medical expenses 12 from a third party, such as a private insurer, may also seek damages from the tortfeasor for 13 the same medical bills, potentially resulting in double-compensation; however, he may not 14 do so if the tortfeasor, not a “collateral source,” covered those expenses. In applying this 15 rule, Arizona courts make no distinction between third party payments from private 16 insurers, government payors, or write-offs pursuant to contractual agreements with medical 17 providers. Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 129 P.3d 487, 495 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). 18 Because AHCCCS, a third-party government payor, paid Plaintiff’s pre-release 19 medical bills, the collateral source rule entitles Plaintiff to seek compensation for those 20 expenses in this action. See Sw. Fiduciary, 249 P.3d at 1109 (“Arizona’s collateral source 21 rule allows a victim whose medical expenses are paid by a government payor to seek 22 recovery of those expenses from a tortfeasor”). Defendants do not meaningfully argue 23 otherwise. They point out that, under Arizona law, the ADCRR director is required to 24 “provide medical and health services” for state prisoners. (Doc. 130 at 2 (quoting Ariz. 25 Rev. Stat. § 31-201.01(D)).) But they fail to acknowledge that the proffered evidence 26 shows that AHCCCS, not ADCRR, actually paid for those services. Defendants also rely 27 on Arizona Revised Statute § 31-201.01(E), which states that “[a]ny and all causes of 28 action that may arise out of tort caused by the director, prison officers or employees of the 1 department . . . shall run only against the state,” to argue that, here, the State is both the 2 tortfeasor and the entity that paid for Plaintiff’s medical care. (Id.) Hence, they argue, “if 3 Plaintiff gets to introduce [his medical bills] at trial, the State may have to pay for such 4 medical bills twice.” (Id.) 5 As noted, Defendants fail to show that the State, via ADCRR, paid Plaintiff’s in- 6 custody medical bills. To the extent Defendants conflate AHCCCS with the State to 7 support their double payment theory, this argument also fails. Even though AHCCCS is a 8 state-run program operated by the AHCCCSA, it is not synonymous with the State; instead, 9 it is a Medicaid plan that relies in large part on federal funding and approval to provide 10 benefits to qualified residents. See, e.g., Arizona Hosp. & Medicaid Healthcare Ass’n v. 11 Betlach, 865 F. Supp. 2d 984, 986 (D. Ariz. 2012). Additionally, Plaintiff is not seeking 12 damages for himself but merely to satisfy a lien AHCCCS placed on his potential damages 13 in this action. Under Arizona law, AHCCCS has this right. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14 36-2915 (AHCCCS “is entitled to a lien for the charges for hospital or medical care and 15 treatment of an injured person for which [it] is responsible, on any and all claims of liability 16 or indemnity for damages accruing to the person to whom hospital or medical service is 17 rendered”). Moreover, “[f]ederal law requires states to establish procedures by which state 18 Medicaid plans may be reimbursed by third-party tortfeasors for payments the plans make 19 on behalf of injured persons to whom tortfeasors are legally liable.” Sw. Fiduciary, 249 20 P.3d at 1109 (emphasis added). Plaintiff therefore not only has a right to seek damages 21 under the collateral source rule but an obligation to do so to satisfy the lien AHCCCS 22 lawfully placed on his potential damages in this action and will potentially suffer 23 deductions from any damages awarded if these expenses are not included. 24 Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 (Doc. 130) is denied.

25 B. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 (Doc. 131) Re: Violation of Prison 26 Policies 27 Defendants move to preclude Plaintiff’s expert, Will Adams, from offering ultimate 28 opinions on Defendants’ alleged violation of prison policies, arguing that these opinions 1 go to the ultimate issue of the case. (Doc. 131 at 1.) As an additional ground for precluding 2 the report, Defendants argue that Mr. Adams’ statements that Plaintiff likely would not 3 have been injured if staff had exercised due care and diligence are merely conclusory. (Id.) 4 They claim Adams opines that “adherence to . . . proper investigation procedures . . . would 5 likely have prevented [Plaintiff]’s injury,” but make only “vague references to a complete 6 investigation taking place” and “does not specify which prison policy was violated.” (Id.) 7 1. Ultimate Issues 8 An expert witness may express an opinion on an ultimate issue to be decided by the 9 trier of fact. Fed. R. Evid. 704(a); United States v. Kinsey, 843 F.2d 383, 388 (9th Cir. 10 1988), overruled on other grounds by, United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 11 2000). “It is well-established . . . that expert testimony concerning an ultimate issue is not 12 per se improper.” Hangarter v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1017 (9th 13 Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted). “An ultimate issue opinion by a properly qualified expert 14 should not be excluded except in the extreme case where the expert’s opinion is inherently 15 misleading or unfairly prejudicial.” Kinsey, 843 F.2d at 389. But “an expert witness cannot 16 give an opinion as to her legal conclusion, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law.” 17 United States v. Diaz, 876 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 2017). “When an expert undertakes to 18 tell the jury what result to reach, this does not aid the jury in making a decision, but rather 19 attempts to substitute the expert’s judgment for the jury’s [judgment].” Id. (quotation 20 omitted). 21 Defendants object to Adams’ statements in his report that Defendants’ conduct in 22 this action was deliberately indifferent. They claim without citation that “Adams states in 23 his report that prison staff violated prison policies and procedures, resulting in deliberate 24 indifference to Plaintiff’s safety.” (Doc. 131 at 2−3.) They correctly note that “whether 25 the Defendants’ alleged [conduct] amounted to deliberate indifference to a serious risk to 26 the Plaintiff’s safety” is an ultimate legal issue reserved for a jury. (Id. at 2.) See Farmer 27 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim a plaintiff 28 must make an objective showing of a substantial risk of serious harm and a subjective 1 showing of “deliberate indifference”). 2 Defendants rely on Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342, 1353 (6th Cir. 1994), for 3 the proposition that experts must not substitute their opinion for that of the jury on this 4 issue. (Doc. 131 at 2.) Berry stated, 5 [t]he expert can testify, if a proper foundation is laid, that the discipline in the Detroit Police Department was lax. He also 6 could testify regarding what he believed to be the 7 consequences of lax discipline. He may not testify, however, that the lax discipline policies of the Detroit Police Department 8 indicated that the City was deliberately indifferent to the 9 welfare of its citizens. 10 25 F.3d at 1353 (emphasis in original). 11 Plaintiff argues that Mr. Adams never used the term “deliberate indifference” or the 12 word “deliberate” in his report or deposition, and even though he used the word 13 “indifference” or “indifferent” a few times, he did so only generally to refer to the lax 14 attitude of all Barchey correctional staff toward their duty to protect prisoners (Doc. 139 15 at 1−2.) Plaintiff maintains that this use of the word comports with its standard dictionary 16 meaning and that such use “in no way amounts to an improper attempt to instruct the jury 17 and does not supplant their role.” (Id. at 3.) 18 In the opinion section of his report, Mr. Adams frequently describes Barchey 19 correctional staff as “inattentive” and “complacent” or as having a “general disregard” for 20 prisoners’ security concerns. (See Doc. 142-1 at 14, 15, 16, 17.) He also describes 21 Defendant Cottrell’s failure to affirmatively act to protect Plaintiff as “indicative of 22 inattention to Mr. Sernas’ request for protection and complacency.” (Id. at 14,) And he 23 opines that Defendants “failed to supervise and manage their areas of responsibility in a 24 manner consistent with industry standards, due care, and to abide by their duty to protect 25 Mr. Sernas from harm.” (Id. at 17.) He similarly opines that Defendants “failed to exercise 26 due care and caution to ensure Mr. Sernas was safe from harm.” (Id. at 18.) Contrary to 27 Defendants’ argument, however, Mr. Adams never opines that Defendants’ conduct 28 equates to deliberate indifference. He uses the word “indifference,” in only two places. 1 He states, “[i]t is my opinion that ADCRR staff at the Barchey facility in 2017 and 2018 2 were indifferent to Mr. Sernas and his security needs,” and, 3 [t]here was indifference and negligence regarding the duty of all correctional staff to protect the health and welfare of 4 incarcerated persons by the staff at Barchey Facility in 2017 5 and 2018, and this indifference led to Mr. Sernas being severely injured and suffering long term effects from that 6 injury. 7 (Id. at 18.) 8 The Court is not persuaded that minimal uses of the word “indifference” result in 9 impermissible expert opinion on an ultimate issue of law. The two places where Adams 10 uses the word indifference merely describe the attitudes of correctional staff, generally, not 11 the state of mind of Defendants. Additionally, Adams employs this word colloquially, in 12 the same vein as other adjectives, such as “inattentive” or “complacent,” not in the precise, 13 technical way courts define deliberate indifference for Eighth Amendment purposes. See, 14 e.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837 (explaining that an official acts with deliberate indifference 15 if she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official 16 must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk 17 of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”) Adam’s limited uses of the 18 word indifference, not “deliberate indifference,” as used in the Eighth Amendment context, 19 do not equate to offering an ultimate opinion on this legal issue or pervade the role of the 20 jury to decide. As explained in Diaz, “it is sometimes impossible for an expert to render 21 his or her opinion on a subject without resorting to language that recurs in the applicable 22 legal standard.” 876 F.3d at 1198. However, “if the terms used by an expert witness do 23 not have a specialized meaning in law and do not represent an attempt to instruct the jury 24 on the law, or how to apply the law to the facts of the case, the testimony is not an 25 impermissible legal conclusion.” Id. at 1199. So, the Court cautions Adams that overuse 26 of the term “indifference” and “deliberately indifferent” in his testimony may pervade the 27 role of the jury. 28 . . . . . 1 2. Conclusory Opinions 2 To the extent Defendants also object to Mr. Adam’s opinions as being merely 3 conclusory on the ground that Adams does not identify specific policies in his report that 4 Defendants violated, this argument is baseless. The report identifies several measures that 5 Adams states, in his professional opinion, Defendants could have and should have taken to 6 address the risk of harm to Plaintiff. These include Adam’s opinion that correctional staff 7 have an obligation to “conduct and document a thorough investigation” into a prisoner’s 8 allegations of a threat; that the assigned investigator has a duty to “look into all claims, 9 interview sources, interview gang and narcotics officers, interview housing staff, and 10 conduct other surveillance activities related to . . . communications monitoring;” and that 11 “if management and classification staff do not have a completed and documented 12 investigation to refer to . . . the inmate’s version of events must be regarded as true . . . and 13 the inmate transferred to housing in a facility away from that in which the threat originated 14 and might still exist.” (Doc. 142-1 at 11, 13, 16, 17.) 15 These opinions are not conclusory; nor does the report need to identify specific 16 ADCRR policies Defendants violated to speak to the constitutional question at issue. Mr. 17 Adams’ opinions about what industry standards require and what he, in his professional 18 opinion, believes should have been done to keep Plaintiff safe are relevant to this question. 19 And Defendants’ objections to the conclusory nature of these opinions merely go to the 20 weight, not the admissibility, of Adams’ report, and are not a basis to preclude Plaintiff 21 from relying on this evidence at trial. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 22 579, 596 (1993) (“Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and 23 careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of 24 attacking shaky but admissible evidence . . . [that otherwise] meets the standards of Rule 25 702.”). 26 Defendants’ Motion In Limine No. 2 (Doc. 131) is denied. 27 . . . . . 28 1 C. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 (Doc. 132) Re: Plaintiff’s Conclusory Expert Opinions 2 Although differently titled, Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 is substantively 3 identical to their Motion in Limine No. 2. It is not clear why Defendants filed two Motions 4 asserting the same arguments, but because the Court has already rejected those arguments, 5 this Motion is moot. 6 Defendants’ Motion In Limine No. 3 (Doc. 132) is denied as moot. 7

8 D. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 (Doc. 133) Re: Plaintiff’s Experts 9 Lemke and Adams Improper Disclosure 10 Defendants move to exclude Dr. Robert Lemke and William Adams from testifying 11 at trial, asserting that they were improperly disclosed under Rule 26 and were not timely 12 disclosed. (Doc. 133 at 1). Defendants say “Plaintiff attempted to disclose Dr. Lemke in 13 his Third Supplemental Disclosure (Doc. 63) and William Adams in his Fifth Supplemental 14 Disclosure (Doc. 87)[,] [h]owever both disclosures were improper.” (Id. at 2). This, 15 Defendants say, warrants their exclusion at trial. 16 Both Defendants and Plaintiff acknowledge that Dr. Lemke and Adams were 17 disclosed as witnesses at Doc. 63 and Doc. 87. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants received 18 his experts’ reports in a timely manner and that “they deposed both experts within the court 19 ordered time constraints [and] following their depositions,” which occurred over two years 20 ago. (Doc. 144 at 3). Thereafter, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. 21 Defendants correctly point out that “[i]f a party fails to provide information or 22 identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that 23 information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the 24 failure was substantially justified or is harmless. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (emphasis added). 25 Though in its review of the docket, the Court cannot tell what form Plaintiff’s disclosures 26 took and to what extent they may or may not have conformed to Rule 26, clearly, 27 Defendants are not prejudiced. As Plaintiff notes, both Dr. Lemke and Adams were 28 deposed by Defendants. So, they were anticipated as witnesses by Defendants. Under these 1 || circumstances, it is hard to see what, if any, prejudice Defendants face if Dr. Lemke and 2|| Mr. Adams were permitted to testify. 3 Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 (Doc. 133) is denied. 4 IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motions in Limine (Docs. 130, 131, 132 and 133). 6 Dated this 3rd day of June, 2025. 7 8 Do we □ ? norable'Dian¢g/4. Hunfetewa 10 United States District Fudge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-12-