Ericson v. City of Phx.
| Decision Date | 02 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-14-01942-PHX-JAT,CV-14-01942-PHX-JAT |
| Parties | Yolanda Ericson, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Phoenix, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Before the Court are Defendants City of Phoenix and Daniel Garcia's ("City Defendants'") Joint Daubert Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Witness Nurse Practitioner Ruth Downing ("Motion to Exclude"), (Doc. 94), Defendant Officer Camarillo's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 98), and City Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 101). The Court now rules on the motions.
On the morning of July 28, 2013, an individual called Phoenix Police Department ("PPD") Dispatch to report a shirtless man damaging an A/C unit located on the roof of his apartment, causing water to leak through his ceiling. (PROC at ¶ 6; PRCP at ¶¶ 1, 5; City Ex. 2, 911 Call Audio Recording at 00:08-00:41, 2:10-2:15). Consistent with the 911-call, PPD dispatched officers, including Officer Abraham Camarillo, to the apartment complex regarding a shirtless man on the rooftop attempting to "mess with" an A/C unit. (City Ex. 3, Dispatch Audio Recording at 00:02-27; PROC at ¶ 7). Upon arrival, PPD officers noticed that Miguel2 Ruiz ("Decedent") was on the apartment complex's roof. (PRCP at ¶¶ 9, 12). Officer Camarillo was then informed, either by the apartment property manager or another officer, that the property manager wanted to press charges against Decedent for criminal trespass and criminal damage. (Doc. 99-4 at 159-60; PRCP at ¶¶ 6, 8).
After the property manager directed Officer Camarillo to Decedent's apartment unit, Camarillo noticed that the door was open, the sound of running water was coming from inside, there was an odor of something actively or recently burnt, and water was flowing out of the opened door onto the pavement below. (PROC at ¶ 10). After knocking on the open door and receiving no answer, Officer Camarillo entered Decedent's empty apartment. (Id. at ¶ 11). He noticed that the bathtub was running, the toilet seat had been torn off, and the pipe connected to the toilet was exposed with water shooting up from it. (Id. at ¶ 12). He also observed residue from small fires on the floor and in the kitchen. (PRCP at ¶ 21).
Outside, PPD officers were unable to communicate successfully with Decedent while he was on the roof and attempted to reach him using an aerial ladder bucket. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 26). Because the apartment's roof was "structurally not sound," the officers made a decision to "minimize" their time on the roof. (Docs. 99-4 at 238:21-26; PROCat ¶ 17). Three officers ascended to the apartment roof but remained in the bucket, attempting to convince Decedent to also get into the bucket. (PRCP at ¶¶ 29, 30).
On the roof, officers had a "circular" conversation with Decedent, who stated he could not see them and was afraid to come off the roof because "they" (apparently individuals other than the officers) were trying to kill him.3 (Id. at ¶ 33). After a few minutes, Decedent walked over to the bucket and officers "grabbed both of his wrists." (Id. at ¶ 37; PROC at ¶ 18). In this position, officers explained to Decedent that he would be handcuffed for everyone's safety.4 (PROC at ¶ 22). Decedent thereafter backed away and an officer attempted to tase Decedent, but it is unclear whether both Taser probes struck Decedent; nevertheless, the parties agree that the Taser had no incapacitating effect on Decedent. (PRCP at ¶ 42; PROC at ¶¶ 24, 25). Decedent then sat down on the apex of the roof for approximately 4.5 minutes while officers again attempted to encourage Decedent to return to the bucket. (PRCP at ¶¶ 43, 44).
On the ground floor, Officer Camarillo watched as Decedent began to scoot towards a second-floor landing outside the front door of an apartment unit. (Id. at ¶ 47). After noticing that the unit's front door was open behind the screen door, Officer Camarillo positioned himself near the stairwell in case Decedent jumped onto the landingto access the unit.5 (Id. at ¶¶ 48, 50). After Decedent jumped nearly 10 feet to the second-floor landing, Officer Camarillo grabbed him and secured a carotid hold around his neck.6 (PRCP at ¶¶ 51, 54, 65; PROC at ¶¶ 29, 37, 39). Within a few seconds, other officers attempted to restrain Decedent by his arms and legs. (PRCP at ¶ 54; PROC at ¶ 37). Another officer also tased Decedent multiple times, but, although Decedent continued to struggle, the parties dispute the actual effects of the Taser on Decedent. (See PRCP at ¶¶ 54, 71; PROC at ¶¶ 37, 43, 44).
After over three minutes from when Officer Camarillo first engaged Decedent, officers were able to handcuff him. (PRCP at ¶ 86; PROC at ¶ 73). After over five minutes into the struggle, officers carried Decedent down a stairway to EMS personnel, who determined that Decedent was pulseless. (PROC at ¶¶ 75, 77). Although EMS resuscitated Decedent, he was taken off life support five days later due to an anoxic brain injury. (Id. at ¶¶ 78, 79).
Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 704, and 705 concern the testimony of expert witnesses. In their Motion to Exclude, City Defendants challenge the admissibility of nurse practitioner Ruth Downing's expert testimony regarding strangulation. (Doc. 94 at 1; see also Doc. 94-1, "Report Regarding Expert Witness on Strangulation").
Plaintiffs contend that City Defendants' Motion to Exclude is actually a discovery dispute and, thus, should be dismissed as untimely. (Doc. 111 at 2-3). Plaintiffs arecorrect that the Rule 16 Scheduling Order states that "the Court will not entertain discovery disputes after the close of discovery barring extraordinary circumstances." (Doc. 14 at 2 n.2). However, the present dispute, though obviously related to matters produced in discovery, is not a "discovery dispute" of the sort contemplated by the Court's Scheduling Order. Rather, a Daubert challenge, like that involved here, is in the nature of a motion in limine directed to the use and admissibility of expert testimony. As a result, the Court will not deny City Defendants' Motion to Exclude as untimely.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ("Rule 702") provides:
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993) ("Daubert I"), the Supreme Court held that Rule 702 imposes a special gatekeeping obligation upon a trial judge to make a preliminary assessment of the admissibility of expert scientific testimony. Specifically, the Court held that under Rule 702, "the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable." Id. at 589. Whether the expert is appropriately qualified, whether her testimony is relevant, and whether her testimony is reliable are all distinct inquiries under Rule 702. See id. at 591; see also Mukhtar v. Cal. State Univ., 299 F.3d 1053, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002) ().
City Defendants first argue that Ms. Downing, a nurse practitioner, is not qualified to offer an opinion about the role of strangulation in Decedent's death because she lacks particular training. (See Docs. 94 at 4-5; 112 at 4).
Rule 702 "contemplates a broad conception of expert qualifications . . . [and] is broadly phrased and intended to embrace more than a narrow definition of qualified expert." Thomas v. Newton Int'l Enters., 42 F.3d 1266, 1269 (9th Cir. 1994). "As the terms of the rule state, an expert may be qualified either by 'knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.'" Id. (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702). To satisfy this requirement, only a "minimal foundation of knowledge, skill, and experience" is required. Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1016 (9th Cir. 2004). As a result, a deficiency in one qualification parameter, such as training, is not necessarily dispositive as to whether the expert is qualified overall. For example, courts have held that specialized experience is sometimes of equal or greater importance than medical training in qualifying an expert to opine about some medical causation issues. See Watkins v. Schriver, 52 F.3d 769, 771 (8th Cir. 1995) (); see also Heck v. City of Lake Havasu, No. CV 04-1810-PCT-NVW, 2006 WL 2460917, at *7-8 (D. Ariz. Aug. 24, 2006) ().
Ms. Downing meets the above qualification standard with respect to her knowledge and experience related to the mechanics and effects of strangulation. Ms. Downing is a nurse practitioner and has been a forensic nurse since 1999. (Doc. 94-1 at 4). She is a member of both the Advisory Team for the Strangulation Training Institute and the Strangulation Task Force for the International Association of Forensic Nurses. (Id.). Additionally, Ms. Downing in an active member of the Ohio Chapter of theInternational Association of Forensic Nurses and served...
To continue reading
Request your trial