Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$C:\Documents and Settings\sey\Desktop\JSS OPINIONS\JSS-05-CV ...$

may come in to impeach her. See FED. R. EVID. 613. At this time, though, this portion of Shannon’s second motion in limine is granted. C. Defendants’ Motion To Exclude Plaintiff’s Experts 1. Arguments of the Parties The defendants ask that I exclude Shannon’s experts Joseph Stine and Zhongming Huang. As a preliminary matter, I note that several of the issues raised in this motion relate solely to the Monell claim, which is not at issue in this trial. Zhongming Huang’s testimony relates solely to the Monell claim. Thus, I will deny the defendants’ motion as to Huang as premature, but they may raise issues as to Huang’s testimony before the second part of this bifurcated trial if necessary. The defendants also question Stine’s ability to offer expert testimony on Monell liability. Likewise, I will not address that portion of Stine’s expert testimony and will deny the defendants’ motion as to Stine’s opinions on Monell liability as premature. Again, the defendants may raise that issue before the second part of the trial if necessary. Regarding the late timing of the defendants’ Motion To Exclude Plaintiff’s Experts, I agree with Shannon that the defendants should have requested a Daubert hearing earlier. Nevertheless, I will still address the merits of the defendants’ arguments in this Order without a Daubert hearing. The defendants ask that I exclude Joseph Stine’s expert testimony as unreliable and wholly unhelpful to the jury or, in the alternative, that I exclude the parts of his opinion that are unhelpful to the jury. 21 The defendants assert that Stine’s opinion is unreliable 20 (...continued) exhibits. FED. R. EVID. 803(5); see also Newton, 206 F.3d at 774. 21 For the purposes of their memorandum, the defendants “assum[e] arguendo” that (continued...) 54
ecause it relies on an incomplete and biased version of the facts. Next, they argue that Stine’s opinion is wholly unhelpful because it consists of little more than legal conclusions as to the “reasonableness” of Koehler’s conduct and speculation as to Koehler’s state of mind. They also argue that Stine’s assessment of Koehler’s conduct under “generally accepted police practices” is unhelpful to the jury because it is irrelevant to whether Koehler’s conduct was reasonable in this case. They argue that, even if Stine is allowed to testify, he should not be permitted to testify as to the witnesses’ credibility and which version of the disputed facts is correct (including testimony as to what occurred in the surveillance video). The defendants ask that I specifically bar Stine’s opinion on the following: (1) whether Koehler exercised proper police procedures; (2) Koehler’s leg sweep method; (3) whether Koehler’s use of force was unreasonable, excessive, dangerous, an abuse of police power, gratuitous, reckless (or any similar adjective) under the circumstances; (4) whether Koehler was “punishing” Shannon; and (5) whether Koehler unreasonably seized Shannon. Shannon first asserts that Stine’s testimony meets the requirements of Rule 702. Shannon specifically notes that Stine’s opinion is based on reliable methods and principles because Stine relied, at least in part, on the Sioux City Police Department’s own policies and the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies’ (CALEA) reports on the Sioux City Police Department, which is a CALEA-accredited department. In response to the defendants’ arguments that Stine’s testimony is unreliable because it is 21 (...continued) Stine is qualified. Defendants’ Motion in Limine To Exclude Plaintiff’s Experts at 7 (docket no. 99-1). In a footnote, the defendants state that they question Stine’s qualifications as an expert witness but chose to focus their memorandum on whether his testimony is reliable and will assist the trier of fact. 55
Page 1 and 2:
Not To Be Published: IN THE UNITED
Page 3 and 4: Plaintiff’s Second Motion In Limi
Page 5 and 6: However, Shannon alleges that he di
Page 7 and 8: B. Procedural Background On August
Page 9 and 10: On September 20, 2010, the defendan
Page 11 and 12: neither is sufficiently qualified t
Page 13 and 14: On May 17, 2011, Shannon filed his
Page 15 and 16: elevant is not admissible.” FED.
Page 17 and 18: intoxication in case number SMSM445
Page 19 and 20: Alternatively, Shannon asserts that
Page 21 and 22: incident.” (citing Schulz v. Long
Page 23 and 24: of force was reasonable because the
Page 25 and 26: 10 (...continued) Dettman v. Krucke
Page 27 and 28: There are two primary reasons why a
Page 29 and 30: as a witness in the plaintiff’s c
Page 31 and 32: and his conviction for interference
Page 33 and 34: and (4) similar in kind and close i
Page 35 and 36: cannot use the July 2, 2005, compla
Page 37 and 38: substantially outweighed by the dan
Page 39 and 40: v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U
Page 41 and 42: B. Plaintiff’s Second Motion In L
Page 43 and 44: likely than most to be deterred fro
Page 45 and 46: Therefore, the defendants may only
Page 47 and 48: knew at the time. The defendants al
Page 49 and 50: e ‘dealt with as the circumstance
Page 51 and 52: Navrkal admitted she was intoxicate
Page 53: “probably” reflected what she b
Page 57 and 58: determine a fact in issue, a witnes
Page 59 and 60: state], testimony in the form of an
Page 61 and 62: that although officers “acted cor
Page 63 and 64: whether Stine used reliable methods
Page 65 and 66: to grant the defendants’ request
Page 67 and 68: ) Defendants’ motion to exclude o
show all

Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?