Summary
This order resolves eight motions in limine in a civil rights and wrongful-death action arising from the fatal shooting of Plaintiffs’ son by a Riverside County Sheriff’s Department corporal. The court partially denies or denies Defendants’ motions concerning expert testimony and prior acts, grants bifurcation of punitive damages, and grants or partially grants Plaintiffs’ motions concerning evidence of the decedent and the defendant officer. The court also invites the parties to stipulate to a limited presentation concerning the decedent’s prior bad acts and mental illness.
Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Decision date
November 21, 2025
Docket number
5:21-cv-1278-MEMF-KK
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether testimony from proposed expert Roger Clark should be excluded because of alleged misconduct, lack of qualifications, insufficient foundation, factual errors, bias, or improper legal conclusions.
- Whether testimony from proposed expert John Gardiner and certain autopsy photographs should be excluded for lack of expertise, insufficient evidentiary support, unreliable methodology, or undue prejudice.
- Whether evidence of the decedent's prior arrests, prior custody under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150, prior interactions with law enforcement, mental illness, and other alleged bad acts should be admitted.
- Whether the trial should be bifurcated into a liability and compensatory-damages phase and a punitive-damages-calculation phase.
- Whether the decedent's personal effects, toxicology report, and evidence suggesting drug or alcohol use should be excluded as irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial.
- Whether evidence of Corporal Perez's awards, accolades, commendations, bloody clothing, hospital stay, and workers' compensation leave should be excluded under Rules 401, 402, and 403.
- Whether testimony from proposed expert Swathi Kode should be excluded as cumulative of another defense expert's scene-reconstruction testimony.
Holdings
- The motion to exclude Roger Clark's testimony was denied in part. Clark was sufficiently qualified to testify regarding police practices, and objections concerning factual disagreement, bias, weight, or reliance on properly framed hypotheticals did not warrant wholesale exclusion. His opinion that transporting the corporal was improper was excluded because he had not disclosed the basis for that opinion.
- The motion to exclude John Gardiner's testimony and the challenged autopsy photographs was denied. Gardiner had appropriate credentials, and the objections principally concerned factual disagreement, bias, and weight. The photographs were sufficiently probative and not unduly prejudicial given their limited number and the expected coroner testimony.
- Evidence of the decedent's prior arrests, section 5150 custody, prior interactions with law enforcement, and much of the evidence concerning his mental illness was excluded, subject to a possible stipulation for a limited presentation. The decedent's subjective intent, motive, or plan was generally irrelevant to the claims except to the extent known to the officer, and the evidence's limited probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudice and the risk of jury speculation.
- The motion to bifurcate the trial was granted as unopposed. The trial will proceed in two phases: first, liability, compensatory-damages calculation, and the factual foundation for any punitive-damages award; second, calculation of punitive damages, if any.
- The motion to exclude the decedent's personal effects, toxicology report, and evidence concerning another screwdriver was granted. The evidence was irrelevant because it was unknown to the officer, and any limited probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudice and the risk of speculation; percipient witnesses may nevertheless describe what they observed.
- The motion to exclude Perez's awards, accolades, and commendations was granted in part because that evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. Evidence of injuries Perez sustained, photographs of those injuries, and limited evidence of his workers' compensation leave and lighter duty were permitted because their probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
- The motion to exclude Swathi Kode's scene-reconstruction testimony was denied. Defendants could call multiple experts, and the anticipated testimony did not appear likely to consume an undue amount of time or trigger Rule 403's prohibition on cumulative or time-wasting evidence.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…