Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chien Van Bui v. City & County of San Francisco

United States District Court, N.D. California

June 27, 2014

CHIEN VAN BUI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants

As Amended July 25, 2014.

Page 878

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 879

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 880

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 881

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 882

For Chien Van Bui, individually, and as successor in interest to the Estate of Vinh Van Bui, Plaintiff: Andrew Charles Schwartz, LEAD ATTORNEY, Casper Meadows Schwartz & Cook, A Professional Corporation, Walnut Creek, CA; Edwin Ken Prather, Law Offices of Edwin Prather, San Francisco, CA; Thomas Andrew Seaton, Casper Meadows Schwartz & Cook, Walnut Creek, CA.

For City and County of San Francisco, Austin Wilson, San Francisco Police Officer, Timothy A. Ortiz, San Francisco Police Officer, Defendants: Sean F. Connolly, LEAD ATTORNEY, Donald Paul Margolis, City Attorney's Office, City of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

Page 883

AMENDED[1] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Re: ECF No. 81]

LAUREL BEELER, United States Magistrate Judge.

INTRODUCTION

In this civil rights action, Chien Van Bui and Ai Huynh (collectively, " Plaintiffs" ), the parents of decedent Vinh Van Bui, known as Tony Bui (" Bui" ), sued San Francisco Police Officers Austin Wilson (" Officer Wilson" ) and Timothy Ortiz (" Officer Ortiz" ), and the City and County of San Francisco (" CCSF" ) (collectively, " Defendants" ) for the death of their son. Complaint, ECF No. 1.[2] Defendants move for summary judgment. Motion, ECF No. 81. The court held a hearing on the matter on June 26, 2014. 6/26/2014 Minute Order, ECF No. 136. Upon consideration of the admissible evidence submitted, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable authority, the court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendants with respect to Plaintiffs' Monell claim and otherwise DENIES Defendants' motion.

STATEMENT

I. FACTS

Defendants Austin Wilson (" Officer Wilson" ) and Timothy Ortiz (" Officer Ortiz" ) were police officers with the San Francisco Police Department (" SFPD" ) and employed by the City and County of San Francisco (" City" ). Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (" UF" ), Fact 1. At all times relevant to this action, they were acting in the course and scope of their employment with the SFPD. UF, Fact 1.

On December 29, 2010, Officer Wilson and Officer Ortiz were in uniform and driving a marked police car. UF, Fact 1. Officer Wilson was 6' tall and weighed 198 pounds, Wilson Depo. 2 at 69:18-70:1, Schwartz Decl., Ex. Q, ECF No. 121-17, and Officer Ortiz was 5'9" tall and weighed between 175 and 185 pounds, Ortiz Depo. 2 at 104:19-22, Schwartz Decl., Ex. L, ECF No. 121-12. Police Inspector Kevin Whitfield, who is not a defendant to this action, also was working that day. UF, Fact 1. Vinh Van Bui, known as Tony Bui (" Bui" ), lived at 629 Bacon Street, San Francisco, a flat which he shared with several family members, including his sisters Cindy Thanh Tran (" Tran" ) and Lan Herrera (" Herrera" ), Herrera's daughter Melina H., his father Plaintiff Chien Van Bui (" Chien Van Bui" ) and his mother Plaintiff Ai Huynh (" Huynh" ). UF, Fact 2. Bui, who was 46 years old and was 5'6" tall and weighed 135 pounds, suffered from a mental condition and was easily agitated by loud noises. UF, Fact 4; Marvin C. Depo. at 20:16-22, Schwartz Decl., Ex. B, ECF No. 121-2; Autopsy Report, Schwartz Decl., Ex. CC, ECF No. 121-29 at 2. Specifically, Bui had suffered from schizophrenia since at least 1995, Chien Van Bui Depo. at 42:9-25, Schwartz Decl., Ex. A, ECF No. 121-1; Medical Records at 87-89, Schwartz Decl., Ex. AA, ECF No. 121-27, and since 1997, as a side effect of his antipsychotic medication, he also suffered from tardive dyskinesia (i.e. " late-onset abnormal movement" ), Shyn Depo. at 33:20-34:17, 38:21-39:7, Schwartz Decl., Ex. N, ECF No. 121-14; Medical Records at 282,

Page 884

Schwartz Decl., Ex. AA, ECF No. 121-27, which sometimes caused his trunk and extremities to rock involuntarily and also caused him to sometimes walk slowly, one step at a time, Marvin C. Depo. at 75:23-77:12, Schwartz Decl., Ex. B, ECF No. 121-2; Shyn Depo. at 33:20-34:17, 34:21-36:1, 38:21-39:7, 51:14-53:16, 57:14-20, Schwartz Decl., Ex. N, ECF No. 121-14; Tran Depo. at 21:110, 24:22-25:14, 34:24-35:4, Schwartz Decl., Ex. O, ECF No. 121-15. Bui did not have a criminal record. Tran Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 104.

On the afternoon of December 29, 2010, Melina H., who was then 15 years old, had approximately 15 of her teenaged friends over at her home at 629 Bacon Street. UF, Fact 3. Sharon H. was one of these friends. UF, Fact 3. At some point in time, Sharon H. entered the bathroom and slammed the door behind her, which startled and agitated Bui. UF, Fact 4; Sharon H. Depo. at 20:3-6, Schwartz Decl., Ex. I, ECF No. 121-9. When Sharon H. came out of the bathroom and was going to the kitchen, Bui stuck her in the lower back with an X-Acto knife, which had a blade that was approximately 1 inch long. UF, Fact 5; Sharon H. Depo. at 25:6-26:16, 72:20-73:18, Connolly Decl., Ex. N, ECF No. 91; Wilson Depo. at 70:13-17, Schwartz Decl., Ex. Q, ECF No. 121-17; Wilson Decl., Ex. A (photograph of the X-Acto knife). The other teenagers told Sharon H. that she was bleeding and apparently injured. Sharon H. Depo. at 27:8-28:8, Connolly Decl., Ex. N, ECF No. 91. Melina H. then telephoned her mother (Herrera), who was not at the house, and told her that " Tony [Bui] cut Sharon [H]." UF, Fact 6. Herrera told Melina H. to call " 911." UF, Fact 7. Melina H. called 911 and reported: " We have a man that's like mental here and just slapped somebody--one of my friends, and yeah, we need him out." UF, Fact 8.

911 Dispatch broadcasted to SFPD officers in the field that Bui had " just slapped [Melina H.'s] friend" and that the " reporting party" said Bui was " mentally challenged." UF, Fact 9. Moments later, Melina H. clarified, telling the 911 operator the following: " [Bui] has like a mini, a little mini like knife thing. It's sharp. And when [her friend] came out [of the bathroom], he said 'Do you want me to stab you?' and he hit her with the little pointy thing. . . . She's bleeding. Yeah, he stabbed her." UF, Fact 10. Based on this additional information, 911 Dispatch broadcasted: " Subject has a pointed object that he stuck the victim with in the back." UF, Fact 11. 911 Dispatch also transmitted through the computer-assisted dispatch system that Bui had " stabbed [Melina H's] friend" and was " mentally challenged," that Melina H. was " not sure if [Bui] has the knife," and that the injury was " minor." UF, Fact 11; Borg Decl., Ex. J, ECF No. 94-10. 911 Dispatch also sent to the police vehicle computer the following text: " TX: Susp is Toni who is mentally challenged." Wilson Depo. at 42:5-15, Schwartz Decl., Ex. Q, ECF No. 121-17. When responding to the dispatch, Officers Ortiz and Wilson had access to the dispatch information through a vehicle computer, working radios and, as to Officer Wilson, an earpiece, Ortiz Depo. at 32:22-25, 54:17-23, 80:10-17, Schwartz Decl., Ex. L, ECF No. 121-12; Wilson Depo. at 32:12-19, Schwartz Decl., Ex. Q, ECF No. 121-17; Ortiz Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 82; Wilson Decl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 84, but Officers Ortiz and Wilson and Inspector Whitfield say they did not know at that time that Bui had mental health problems, Ortiz Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 82; Whitfield Decl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 83, Wilson Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 84.

At about 3:53 p.m., Officers Ortiz and Wilson arrived at 629 Bacon Street. UF, Fact 12. Inspector Whitfield also responded,

Page 885

arriving at 629 Bacon Street at about the same time as Officers Ortiz and Wilson. UF, Fact 13. The parties dispute whether the officers treated the call as an emergency. Plaintiffs say that the officers did not and provide evidence that the officers' sirens and lights were off, the officers were not running, and the officers did not discuss tactics when approaching the flat. Ortiz Depo. at 45:13-20, 48:18-25, 55:11-14, Schwartz Decl., Ex. L, ECF No. 121-12; Wilson Depo. at 55:19-21, 58:1-8, 66:25-68:24, Schwartz Decl., Ex. Q, ECF No. 121-17. Defendants, on the other hand, provide evidence that the 911 call was classified as an " A priority" call, giving it the highest priority, Goley Depo. at 17:20-18:14, Connolly Reply Decl., Ex. D, ECF No. 129-4 at 17:20-18:14; Borg Decl., Ex. B, ECF No. 94-2; Borg Decl., Ex. J, ECF No. 94-10, and that the officers responded, at least initially, to the call as a " Code 3" --with their lights and sirens on, Ortiz Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 82; Wilson Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 84. Their guns were holstered, Ortiz Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 82; Wilson Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 84, they had pepper spray and batons on their persons, and they also had an Extended Range Impact Weapon (" ERIW" )--a shotgun that shoots bean bags--in their car, Ortiz Depo. at 28:2-4, 46:4-12, Schwartz Decl., Ex. L, ECF No. 121-12; Wilson Depo. at 35:18-37:4, Schwartz Decl., Ex. Q, ECF No. 121-17.

The officers either knocked on the door or rang the doorbell, and one of the teenagers at Melina H.'s get-together, Aaron L., opened the door and allowed the officers into the house. UF, Fact 14. Upon entering, Officers Ortiz and Wilson and Inspector Whitfield saw a group of teenagers in the living room, and at least one officer asked whether anyone had been stabbed. UF, Fact 15; UF, Fact 16; Ortiz Decl. ¶ ¶ 4-6, ECF No. 82; Whitfield Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 83; Jason W. Depo. at 33:10-24, Connolly Decl., Ex. H, ECF No. 88; Sharon H. Depo. at 36:11-20, Connolly Decl., Ex. N, ECF No. 91; Marvin C. Depo. at 40:24-41:9, 42:7-13, 73:20-24, Connolly Decl., Ex. J, ECF No. 89; Tran Depo. at 13:9-11; 14:10-15:17, Connolly Decl., Ex. P, ECF No. 92-1; Ortiz Depo. at 49:5-12, Schwartz Decl., Ex. L, ECF No. 121-12. Initially, no one in the room acknowledged that anyone had been stabbed, no one appeared to be in distress, and Bui's sister, Tran, the only adult present, said nothing had happened. UF, Fact 16; Ortiz Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 82; Sharon H. Depo. at 39:1-6, Connolly Decl., Ex. N, ECF No. 91; Ortiz Depo. at 49:13-22, Schwartz Decl., Ex. L, ECF No. 121-12. Tran may also have told the police officers to leave. See Sharon H. Depo. at 39:3-40:2, Connolly Decl., Ex. N, ECF No. 91; Sharon H. Depo. at 66:11-16, Schwartz Decl., Ex. I, ECF No. 121-9; Whitfield Depo. at 62:7-16, Schwartz Decl., Ex. P, ECF No. 121-16; Tran Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 104; but see Tran Depo. at 14:2-17:15, 57:15-20, 58:20-23, Connolly Reply Decl., Ex. P, ECF No. 129-16 at 14:2-17:15. No one had yet informed Tran that anyone had been stabbed, that Melina H. had called the police, or why Melina H. had done so. UF, Fact 19. Relying on the information that Tran provided to him (i.e., that nothing had happened), Officer Ortiz radioed Dispatch at 3:45:43 p.m. and stated that the call had " no merit." UF, Fact 17.

Thereafter, Inspector Whitfield again asked the group of teenagers if anyone had been " stabbed." Whitfield Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 83. This time, Sharon H. was pointed out as having been cut, and she raised her hand in confirmation. UF, Fact 20. Inspector Whitfield asked Sharon H. where she had been stabbed, and she showed him the injury on her back, which Inspector Whitfield describes as a " puncture wound." UF, Fact 21. Tran heard

Page 886

Inspector Whitfield confirm with Sharon H. that she had been stabbed. UF, Fact 22. Inspector Whitfield's observation of the puncture wound confirmed that a stabbing or other such injury had occurred, but Sharon H. stated that she was not hurt and did not need a paramedic. Whitfield Decl. ¶ ¶ 5-6, ECF No. 83; Whitfield Depo. at 45:6-8, Schwartz Decl., Ex. P, ECF No. 121-16. Officers Ortiz and Wilson saw Sharon H. lift her shirt and point to her back, and Officer Ortiz saw a wound on her back, which looked to him like a fresh cut. Ortiz Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 82; Wilson Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 84. Having confirmed that Sharon H. had been stabbed, Officers Ortiz and Wilson asked with urgency the location of the man with the knife. Ortiz Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 82; Whitfield Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 83; Wilson Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 84; Tran Depo. at 14:10-15:22, Connolly Decl., Ex. P, ECF No. 92-1; Marvin C. Depo. at 41:3-15, Connolly Decl., Ex. J, ECF No. 89. Certain people in the house informed Officers Ortiz and Wilson that Bui was in the house, by either pointing down the hall or telling the officers. UF, Fact 25.

Hearing that a stabbing had occurred, seeing the wound, and hearing that the perpetrator was in the house corroborated for the officers that a crime had been committed and that the suspect was located on the premises. Ortiz Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 82; Whitfield Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 83; Wilson Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 84. The officers did not know at that time whether Bui still possessed the X-Acto Knife. Ortiz Depo. at 59:20-22, Schwartz Decl., Ex. L, ECF No. 121-12. As they advanced, Tran tried to inform the officers again of Bui's mental illness, and Plaintiffs say that the officers shoved her aside. Marvin C. Depo. at 70:25-71:20, Schwartz Decl., Ex. B, ECF No. 121-2; Melina H. Depo. at 69:6-12, 71:1-25, Schwartz Decl., Ex. H, ECF No. 121-8; Aaron L. Depo. at 21:13-17, 21:25-22:2, 25:7-11, 39:14-19, Schwartz Decl., Ex. K, ECF No. 121-11; Simon P. Depo. at 26:2-9, 26:24-27:19, 42:3-6, Schwartz Decl., Ex. M, ECF No. 121-13; Tran Depo. at 16:1-15, 17:7-15, 55:2-9, Schwartz Decl., Ex. O, ECF No. 121-15; Sandra W. Depo. at 70:22-71:3, 76:15-20, Schwartz Decl., Ex. T, ECF No. 121-20; Tran Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 104. In any case, Officer Ortiz and Officer Wilson say that they do not recall Tran telling them that Bui was mentally ill. Ortiz Depo. at 54:17-55:8, 56:24-57:10, Schwartz Decl., Ex. L, ECF No. 121-12; but see Tran Depo. at 16:7-10, 17:23-24, Schwartz Decl., Ex. O, ECF No. 121-15 (testifying that one of the officers told her that he knew Bui was mentally ill). Officers Ortiz and Wilson did not develop a plan to extract Bui from the bathroom. Ortiz Depo. at 55:11-14, Schwartz Decl., Ex. L, ECF No. 121-12; Wilson Depo. at 96:17-97:11, Schwartz Decl., Ex. Q, ECF No. 121-17.

Officers Ortiz and Wilson walked down the hallway toward the bathroom, looking for Bui. UF, Fact 26. Officers Ortiz knocked on the bathroom door and ordered Bui out. Ortiz Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 82; Melina H. Depo. at 75:18-24, Schwartz Decl., Ex. H, ECF No. 121-1; Sharon H. Depo. at 38:6-23, 40:14-19, Schwartz Decl., Ex. I, ECF No. 121-9; Andrew K. Depo. at 32:24-33:4, Schwartz Decl., Ex. J, ECF No. 121-10; Simon P. Depo. at 26:5-9, Schwartz Decl., Ex. M, ECF No. 121-13; Jason W. Depo. at 37:2-6, Schwartz Decl., Ex. R, ECF No. 121-18. Soon therafter, the bathroom door opened inward, and Bui emerged with the X-Acto knife in his hand. UF, Fact 26; see Wilson Decl., Ex. A, ECF No. 84-1 (photographs of the X-Acto knife). Officers Ortiz and Wilson then pulled out their guns and pointed them at Bui. UF, Fact 28.

The parties agree about the following facts leading to Bui's shooting. After the

Page 887

officers pulled out their guns and pointed them at Bui, they warned him to drop the knife. UF, Fact 29. Bui did not drop the knife. Id. Bui advanced down the hallway while Officers Ortiz and Wilson continued to order Bui to drop the knife. UF, Fact 30. The officers backed up somewhere in the living room. UF, Fact 31. Bui did not stop. UF, Fact 32. The officers shot three times at Bui. UF, Fact 33. Two of the shots hit Bui, who was injured fatally. UF, Fact 36.

The parties otherwise dispute much of what happened from the time that Bui opened the bathroom door to the moment he was shot. According to Plaintiffs, Bui had the X-Acto knife down by his side. Melina H. Depo. at 78:12-14 (" [Bui] started walking out really slowly. I saw the X-Acto knife; it was by his side." ), 79:9-11 (" [Bui] was walking very slowly, with his X-Acto knife by his side . . . ." ), 79:22-25 (" [T]he police were backing up really fast, and [Bui] was, like, going extremely, like, slow, walking, and with the thing on his side . . . ." ), Schwartz Decl., Ex. H, ECF No. 121-8; Tran Depo. at 21:11-22:1 (" And then he had his hand down. His hand never moved. He did not move his hand at all. He did not have any action that says he's trying to provoke the police." ), 69:23-70:5 (" Q: Did it appear to you that [Bui] was pointing whatever it was that you saw in his hand toward the police officers? A: No. I don't think he ha[d] any action to say that he's trying to attack the police. Q: Was he pointing the object in his hand at the police officers or not? A: No, no. Never. I didn't see." ), Schwartz Decl., Ex. O, ECF No. 121-15. Plaintiffs say that Bui, with the X-Acto knife still by his side, began to slowly shuffle down the hall and toward the officers and the front door of the flat. Marvin C. Depo. at 76:6-77:10 (Bui shuffled), Schwartz Decl., Ex. B, ECF No. 121-2; Melina H. Depo. at 78:4-81:7 (Bui walked extremely slowly down the hall and toward the officers and the front door, and he had the knife at his side), Schwartz Decl., Ex. H, ECF No. 121-8; Simon P. Depo. at 44:6-18 (Bui walked slowly toward the officers), 57:19-58:1 (Bui advanced slowly toward the officers), Schwartz Decl., Ex. M, ECF No. 121-13; Tran Depo. at 20:22-22:4 (Bui moved slowly), 62:11-20 (Bui walked very slowly out of the bathroom), 63:15-17 (Bui walked very slowly toward the officers), 65:21-66:2 (Bui's hands were straight at his sides as he walked down from the bathroom towards the living room), 69:17-70:5 (Bui did not point anything at the officers), Schwartz Decl., Ex. O, ECF No. 121-15. Plaintiffs further say that Bui did not threaten the police with the knife, but instead assumed a defensive, protective, cringing attitude where he turned away from the Officers and bent at the waist, keeping the hand with the knife at his side and bringing the other hand up with an open palm. Melina H. Depo. at 79:5-82:9 (Bui held knife at his side), Schwartz Decl., Ex. H, ECF No. 121-8; Aaron L. Depo. at 22:3-4 (Bui came out of the bathroom in a self-defense position), 23:21-25:5 (Bui crouched in self-defense position and had one hand open), 39:20-23 (Bui was not aggressive and was in a defense stance), Schwartz Decl., Ex. K, ECF No. 121-11; Simon P. Depo. at 57:19-58:1 (Bui advanced slowly), Schwartz Decl., Ex. M, ECF No. 121-13; Tran Depo. at 21:18-22:19 (Bui's hands were down), 65:21-66:2 (same), 69:17-70:5 (Bui never pointed anything at the officers), Schwartz Decl., Ex. O, ECF No. 121-15. The officers ordered that Bui drop the knife, but it appeared that he did not understand them. Sharon H. Depo. at 69:24-70:2 (Bui did not appear to understand the officers' commands), Schwartz Decl., Ex. I, ECF No. 121-9; Simon P. Depo. at 46:23-47:3 (same), Schwartz

Page 888

Decl., Ex. M, ECF No. 121-13; Tran Depo. at 20:20-23 (Bui could not hear what the officers were telling him), Schwartz Decl., Ex. O, ECF No. 121-15; but see Sharon H. Depo. at 70:15-71:25 (does not actually know if Bui understood the officers' commands), Schwartz Decl., Ex. I, ECF No. 121-9. The officers backed up to somewhere in the living room. UF, Fact 31. When approximately 6 to 8 feet away from Bui, the officers fatally shot Bui twice, with Officer Ortiz firing two shots (one of which missed Bui), and Officer Wilson firing one. UF, Fact 33; UF, Fact 34; Herrmann Decl. ¶ ¶ 3-13, ECF No. 103. The bullet from Officer Ortiz's gun " passed primarily from [Bui's] left to his right, downward at an angle of approximately 30 degrees and from the front of his body toward the back at an angle of approximately 30 degrees." Herrmann Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 103. The bullet from Officer Wilson's gun primarily passed through Bui " downward at an angle of approximately 55 degrees" and " was directed from [his] right to left at an angle of approximately 15 degrees and from front to back at an angle of approximately 35 degrees." Herrmann Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 103. " The shots were not fired with the officers and [Bui] facing each other in the erect position," Herrmann Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 103, Bui was turned away to his right from Officer Ortiz, Herrmann Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 103, and the bullets may have hit him at a downward angle either because he was shorter than the officers, he was falling from having been shot, or was cringing and trying to avoid being shot, Herrmann Decl. ¶ ¶ 9-13, ECF No. 103.

Defendants present a different story. They say that when Bui emerged from the bathroom, his hands were up near his chest and he walked towards Officers Ortiz and Wilson while waving the X-Acto knife in the air in an aggressive and menacing manner. Ortiz Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 82; Whitfield Decl., ¶ 9, ECF No. 83; Wilson Decl., ¶ 8, ECF No. 84; Wilson Depo. at 111:11-112:9, Connolly Decl., Ex. S, ECF No. 93-2. They say that Bui was close enough to Officers Ortiz and Wilson to be able to stab either of them if he lunged towards them. Wilson Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 84; Whitfield Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 83. Officers Ortiz and Wilson repeatedly told Bui to drop the knife, but he did not do so. UF, Fact 29; Ortiz Decl. ¶ ¶ 8-9, ECF No. 82; Whitfield Decl. ¶ ¶ 8, 10, ECF No. 83; Wilson Decl. ¶ ¶ 9-10, ECF No. 84; Sharon H. Depo. at. 43:4-17, 44:4-9, 58:2-4, Connolly Decl., Ex. N, ECF No. 91; Jason W. Depo. at 37:2-15, 40:12-14, 41:18-42:5, 45:2-11, Connolly Decl., Ex. H, ECF No. 88; Marvin C. Depo. at 45:7-46:2, Connolly Decl., Ex. J, ECF No. 89; Andrew K. Depo. at 34:16-25, Connolly Decl., Ex. C, ECF No. 86-3; Aaron L. Depo. at 19:16-21, 22:3-6, 24:7-12, 42:22-43:6, 43:12-44:9, Connolly Decl., Ex. B, ECF No. 86-2; Simon P. Depo. at 29:3-7, 57:16-21, Connolly Decl., Ex. O, ECF No. 92. Still holding the knife in the air in an aggressive manner, Bui continued down the hallway (at a regular or quick pace) and toward Officers Ortiz and Wilson, and Officers Ortiz and Wilson continued to order Bui to drop the knife. UF, Fact 30; Ortiz Decl. ¶ ¶ 8-9, ECF No. 82; Wilson Decl., ¶ ¶ 8-9, ECF No. 84; Tran Depo. at 67:14-25, Connolly Decl., Ex. P, ECF No. 92-1; Sharon H. Depo. at ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.