Stella v. Davis Cnty.

• Decision Date: 12 July 2022
• Docket Number: 1:18-cv-002
• Parties: CYNTHIA STELLA, and the ESTATE OF HEATHER MILLER, Plaintiffs, v. DAVIS COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Utah

CYNTHIA STELLA, and the ESTATE OF HEATHER MILLER, Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVIS COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-002

United States District Court, D. Utah

July 12, 2022

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS

Jill N. Parrish United States District Court Judge

The parties filed a number of evidentiary motions in advance of the pretrial conference. See ECF Nos. 157, 163, 164, and 165. The court addresses these motions in a single, consolidated order.

I. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE [ECF No. 157]

“Judicial notice permits a judge to accept ‘a matter as proved without requiring the party to offer evidence of it.'” United States v. Estep, 760 F.2d 1060, 1063 (10th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). A court's power to take judicial notice is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Under that rule, a court “may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” The court must take judicial notice if a party requests it and supplies the court with the necessary information. FED. R. EVID. 201(c)(2).

Plaintiffs move the court to take judicial notice of the following facts: (1) Miller and Stella's life expectancies, (2) several facts from the medical examiner's report, (3) the minimum wage in Utah, (4) sections of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (“UGIA”) related to punitive

1

damages, and (5) the National Commission of Correctional Health Care's Standards for Health Services in Jail. The court addresses each fact in turn.

A. Life Expectancy

Plaintiffs move the court to take judicial notice of Miller and Stella's average life expectancy under the Social Security Administration's Actuarial Table. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs' request. See ECF No. 162 at 3. Accordingly, the court takes judicial notice that Miller's life expectancy under the Actuarial Table is 53.93 years (19,864 days) and that Stella's life expectancy under the Actuarial Table is 30.82 years (11,249 days).

B. Facts from Medical Examiner's Report

Plaintiffs request that the court take judicial notice of several facts found within the medical examiner's report: (1) Miller's cause of death, (2) her date and time of death, and (3) notes in the “evidence of injury” section of the report. Plaintiffs contend that it is appropriate to take judicial notice of facts that derive from government records, such as a medical examiner report. Defendants argue that the court need not take judicial notice of the aforementioned facts because Plaintiffs have already designated the autopsy report, which contains the facts, as one of their exhibits. Moreover, Defendants argue that Dr. Christensen, who performed Miller's autopsy and wrote the autopsy report, can answer questions about the cause and manner of Miller's death.

Plaintiffs are correct that courts have taken judicial notice of a medical examiner's report. See, e.g., Snyder v. Ent. Rent-A-Car Co., 392 F.Supp.2d 1116, 1123 n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2005). However, “[b]ecause the effect of judicial notice is to deprive a party of the opportunity to use rebuttal evidence, cross-examination and argument to attack contrary evidence, caution must be used in determining that a fact is beyond controversy under Rule 201(b).” Int'l Star Class Yacht Racing Assoc. v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc.,

2

146 F.3d 66, 70 (2nd Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Boyd, 289 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e are mindful that if a court takes judicial notice of a fact whose application is in dispute, the court removes the weapons of rebuttal evidence, cross-examination, and argument from the parties and raises doubt as to whether the parties received a fair hearing.” (citation omitted and cleaned up)).

The facts for which Plaintiffs request judicial notice are not beyond controversy. Indeed, the statements contained in the autopsy report are the type of information that can be probed through cross-examination. Specifically, Defendants represent that they intend to question Dr. Christensen about “the cause of death, including how the death producing injury was incurred, and the time of death.” ECF No. 162 at 8. Taking judicial notice of cherry-picked facts from the report could relieve Plaintiffs of the need to enter the report into evidence, which raises the concern, cited by the Tenth Circuit, that Plaintiffs will sidestep any exploration of the medical examiner's findings on cross-examination. See Boyd, 289 F.3d at 1258. Accordingly, the facts contained in the medical examiner's report are not the sort of facts “not subject to reasonable dispute”—but rather, the proper subject of exploration on cross-examination. Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice of facts from the medical examiner's report.

C. Minimum Wage in Utah

Plaintiffs next request that court take judicial notice that Utah's minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Defendants concede that a state's minimum wage is a proper subject for judicial notice. And the court agrees. Courts may take judicial notice of facts “generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction,” such as minimum wage. Rule 201(b)(1); see also Rivera v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., No. 13-397, 2016 WL 7383321, at *9 (D.N.M. Feb. 5, 2016) (noting that the court took judicial notice of minimum wage).

3

Nevertheless, Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice as to minimum wage on relevancy grounds. Specifically, Defendants argue that because Plaintiffs have produced no evidence that Miller...