United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER FOLLOWING FURTHER PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge.
21, 2016, the Court held a further Pretrial Conference in
this case. For the reasons stated at the conference and in
this Order, the Court orders as follows.
22, 2016, the Parties shall submit a revised set of voir dire
questions that conforms with the Court’s July 11, 2016
Order, and deletes any questions covered by the questionnaire
lodged by the Parties during the further Pretrial Conference
on July 21, 2016.
22, 2016, the Parties shall submit a revised set of jury
instructions, divided into pre-instructions and final
instructions. The revised instructions shall conform with the
discussion during the further Pretrial Conference, including
the revisions to the “Claims and Defenses”
instruction, the deletion of instructions regarding
Plaintiff’s Bane Act, battery, and negligence claims,
and the addition of an explanation of the verdict form in the
“Return of Verdict” instruction.
verdict form to which the Parties stipulated on the record
during the further Pretrial Conference is attached to this
July 22, 2016, the Parties shall submit a revised version of
the stipulation and proposed order submitted on July 15,
2015, regarding Defendant City and County of San
Francisco’s agreement not to assert the right to
payment for goods and services provided in connection with
treatment of Plaintiff Michael Garner for injuries sustained
on November 27, 2013 (Dkt. 99) to include a statement to the
effect that Plaintiff preserves his objections to the
Court’s rulings regarding the collateral source rule
and economic damages, and to clarify if necessary that
Defendant City and County of San Francisco will not attempt
to collect any local taxes in connection with this treatment.
The Parties shall further revise the stipulation and proposed
order to provide that the Court will retain jurisdiction to
enforce this order.
Parties stipulated on the record that the jury’s
finding regarding whether Officer Harris used unreasonable
force during the course of his arrest of Michael Garner is
determinative of its finding on Plaintiff’s Bane Act,
battery, and negligence claims.
Parties stipulated on the record that, if the jury finds that
Plaintiff Michael Garner has proven by clear and convincing
evidence that Officer Jared Harris’s conduct was
malicious or committed in reckless disregard of Michael
Garner’s rights, it has necessarily also found that
Plaintiff met his burden under the preponderance of the
PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS
of Plaintiff’s May 24, 2013 and July 14, 2014 felony
convictions is admissible under Rule 609 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, as Plaintiff acknowledged on the record
during the further Pretrial Conference. The felonies at issue
involved stolen property and burglary and occurred only
approximately two and three years ago. See Clem v.
Lomeli, Case No. 2:05cv02129 (JKS), 2007 WL 2688842, at
*2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2007) (citations omitted); United
States v. Estrada, 430 F.3d 606, 618 (2d Cir. 2005);
Daniels v. Loizzo, 986 F.Supp. 245, 249 (S.D.N.Y.
1997). Accordingly their nature, and the time that has
elapsed since conviction, weigh in favor of admission.