Chaudhry v. Smith
| Decision Date | 21 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:16-cv-01243-SAB |
| Parties | PERVAIZ A. CHAUDHRY, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs, v. DR. KAREN SMITH, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Pervaiz A. Chaudhry, M.D., and Valley Cardiac Surgery Medical Group ("Plaintiffs') filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Fresno County Superior Court on June 17, 2016. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 10-30.1) Plaintiff Chaudhry, a cardiac surgeon, performed cardiac surgery on a patient who went into cardiac arrest and suffered hypoxic brain injury. An anonymous complaint was lodged with the California Department of Public Health ("CDPH") alleging that Plaintiff Chaudhry left the operating room while the patient's chest was still open and left the hospital before the surgery was completed. Plaintiffs allege that their due process rights were violated due the investigation and subsequent findings on the complaint.
On August 19, 2016, Defendants Karen Smith,2 Steven Lopez, Eric Creer, Shirley Campbell, and Deidre Kappmeyer removed the action to the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) Following summary judgment, this action is proceeding against Dr. Karen Smith in her official capacity, Steven Lopez in his individual capacity, and Shirley Campbell in her individual capacity ("Defendants") on allegations of violations of due process.3 (ECF Nos. 56, 60). The matter is set for trial on May 11, 2020 before the undersigned. (ECF No. 95.)
Currently before the Court are the parties' motions in limine, filed January 17, 2020. (ECF Nos. 90, 91.) Oppositions to the motions were filed on January 31, 2020. (ECF No. 92, 93.) A hearing on the motion was held on February 7, 2020. Counsel Thornton Davidson and Ty Kharazi appeared for Plaintiffs and counsel Diana Esquivel appeared for Defendants. Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, arguments presented at the February 7, 2020 hearing, as well as the Court's file, the Court issues the following order.
"A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence in a particular area." United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009). A party may use a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence before it is actually introduced at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). "[A] motion in limine is an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and evenhanded management of the trial proceedings." Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436,440 (7th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine allows the parties to resolve evidentiary disputes before trial and avoids potentially prejudicial evidence being presented in front of the jury, thereby relieving the trial judge from the formidable task of neutralizing the taint of prejudicial evidence. Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003).
Judges have broad discretion in ruling on a motion in limine. Jenkins v. Chrysler MotorsCorp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002) ); see also United States v. Torres, 794 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) (). Evidence should not be excluded on a motion in limine unless it is inadmissible on all potential grounds. McConnell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 995 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1167 (D. Nev. 2014); United States v. Hitesman, No. 14-CR-00010-LHK-1, 2016 WL 3523854, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2016). Unless this high standard is met, ruling on the motion in limine should be denied until trial so that the evidence can be considered in its proper context. McConnell, 995 F.Supp.2d at 1167; Hitesman, 2016 WL 3523854, at *2; see also Jonasson, 115 F.3d at 440 ().
Plaintiffs bring twelve motions in limine: 1) exclude any mention of the results of the lawsuit in Arteaga v. Fresno Community Regional Medical Center (hereafter "Perez"),4 other than approved deposition testimony; 2) exclude any deposition testimony from Perez unless the parties have met and agreed upon the portion to be read; 3) allow Plaintiffs to show negative print and television news coverage of Plaintiff Chaudhry; 4) exclude Defendants' rebuttal witnesses; 5) exclude any mention of Plaintiff Chaudhry's prior alcohol use; 6) exclude any evidence that Plaintiff Chaudhry left the operating room while Mr. Perez was unstable; 7) exclude evidence of other lawsuits filed involving Plaintiff Chaudhry or his medical practice; 8) exclude all evidence related to other non-medical lawsuits involving Dr. Chaudhry or his medical practice; 9) exclude Defendants from stating that the closure of Mr. Perez by Physicians Assistant ("PA") Bella Albakova was not within the standard and accepted medical care; 10) permit Plaintiffs to inquire into the identity of the persons who refused to modify the "incorrect" CDPH 2567; 11) allow Plaintiffs' percipient witnesses to testify; and 12) preclude any evidence that Plaintiff Chaudhryand PA Albakova had a personal relationship or that Plaintiff Chaudhry was involved in an extra-marital affair.
Defendants bring seven motions in limine: 1) exclude evidence of the revocation of Defendant Lopez' medical license and his prior convictions; 2) exclude communications between Plaintiffs' attorneys and CDPH staff concerning amendment of the report; 3) exclude testimony of non-retained experts; 4) exclude testimony from Plaintiff Chaudhry and his lay witnesses regarding his economic loss and any causal connection between the report and the reduction in revenue; 5) exclude media, news, and internet comments about Plaintiffs; 6) exclude any document that Plaintiffs have not timely disclosed; and 7) preclude Plaintiffs from relitigating the negligence cause of action tried and determined in Perez.
The parties bring numerous motions in limine pertaining to the state lawsuit in which Plaintiff Chaudhry was found liable based on his treatment of Mr. Perez. These motions seek to either allow or preclude evidence based on its relevance, unfair prejudice, or confusion to the jury. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that generally relevant evidence is admissible at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 402. "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevant evidence can be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Plaintiffs' first motion in limine seeks to exclude any references to the Perez lawsuit, other than approved deposition testimony. Plaintiffs contend that permitting any reference, other than the approved deposition testimony, would be extremely confusing to the jury and highly prejudicial to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend that the prior lawsuit was fundamentally different as that jury was asked to determine whether Plaintiff Chaudhry committed malpractice while this lawsuit is determining whether the defendants conducted a proper investigation and unjustlydeprived Plaintiff Chaudhry of his civil rights. Plaintiffs also seek to exclude Mr. Perez's wife and son as witnesses in this action because their testimony is irrelevant to the issues in this case and their testimony would be highly prejudicial concerning their relative's case.
Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that certain information regarding Perez is relevant and its probative value outweighs any prejudice to Plaintiffs. For example, Defendants argue that although Plaintiffs seek to exclude the testimony of Mr. Perez's wife and son such testimony is relevant as to how the family found out about Plaintiff Chaudhry's conduct in the operating room and why they filed their lawsuit. Defendants state that Plaintiffs intend to argue that the lawsuit was filed due to the State 2567 report, but the family has testified that they were informed of the conduct from an anonymous caller which led to the filing of the lawsuit. Further, Defendants argue that the fact that the jury returned a 60-million-dollar verdict against Plaintiff Chaudhry is relevant to the cause of his emotional distress and any aggravation of his cluster headaches. Defendants agree that much of the evidence from Perez is not relevant and should be excluded, but contend that a wholesale exclusion of evidence is not permissible. Defendants argue that ruling on evidence from the Perez lawsuit should be deferred until during trial when the Court can determine whether it is relevant to an issue that the jury must decide.
Rule 404(b) provides that evidence of other acts is admissible for a purpose other than to prove character, "such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). Generally speaking, evidence of other lawsuits against a party is admissible where relevant and offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b). Jackson v. Fed. Express, No. CV1001760MMMCWX, 2011 WL 13268074, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2011); see also Engquist v. Oregon Dep't of Agric., 478 F.3d 985, 1009 (9th Cir. 2007), aff'd sub nom. Engquist v. Oregon Dep't of Agr., 553 U.S. 591 (2008) ().
Plaintiffs rely on Engquist to argue that the Court should exclude...
To continue reading
Request your trial