Kang vs. City of Huntington Beach

Opposition

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.January 25, 2013

© o o ~N n Bs W N — RN RN N N N N N N RN m m r m e m e m e e ee s e e e e pe d ee d 0 ~~ O N nh BR W N =, O N D N N D R E W N m © 167191.docx MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney (SBN 258446) BRIAN L. WILLIAMS, Sr. Trial Counsel (SBN 227948) 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5555 FAX (714) 374-1590 = Email: Brian. Williams@surfeity-hb.org [Exe 2 = G5 = i JIC ALL Y F ILE D taf C alf omi , Cot y of ( rng {UN S i Ad Cl of th e Spe r Cot By Cl, e y Cl Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH and WILLIAM BROWNLEE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER SUNNY KANG, CASE NO. 30-2013-00626834 [Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Dept. C19] Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF vs. STEVEN H. STAVELEY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, Trial Date: October 13, 2017 HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM BROWNLEE, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants. a Defendants CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (the “City”) and WILLIAM BROWNLEE (“Brownlee”) hereby submit this opposition to Plaintiff SUNNY KANG’s (“Plaintiff”) motion in limine no. 7 to limit the testimony of defense expert Steven H. Staveley. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff's motion in limine vaguely refers to limiting certain opinions of Steven H. Staveley. However, the motion lacks requisite specificity and merit. The notice of the motion 1 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF STEVEN H. STAVELEY OO 0 N N n t Bs W R ee 0 N l O N Wn RAR W N me O O R N Y R W N Y = O 167191.docx refers to a completely different expert Stein E. Husher’s opinions [see, page 3 of the motion] and declarations by individuals not involved in this case'. The body of the motion vaguely seeks to limit Mr. Staveley’s opinions with respect to undefined categories of “accident reconstruction” and “human factors.” Furthermore, the testimony referred to is not attached to the motion. The lack of specificity is fatal to the motion. As this court is well aware, motions in [imine are meant to address a specific piece of evidence such as specific testimony that one side seeks to exclude. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Staveley testified in his deposition that he essentially had one opinion — that what officer Brownlee did in glancing down at his MDT was not unsafe. Plaintiff’s counsel then chose to question Mr. Staveley on purported “human factors” and “accident reconstruction” issues, to which Mr. Staveley responded. Now, in a vague and unspecific motion in limine, Plaintiff want to exclude certain “topics,” and ignores the obvious overlap in issues. Such exclusion is not warranted. In addition, the testimony of Mr. Staveley does in fact support his expertise, or his special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education that qualifies him to provide this testimony. Mr. Staveley may not be an engineer or a professional expert, but he certainly has the requisite special knowledge, skill and education to opine on certain matters that are of common knowledge to him in his line of work. As such, the motion in limine should be denied. II. MR. STAVELEY HAS THE REQUISITE SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILL AND EDUCATION TO PROVIDE EXPERT OPINION Plaintiffs position that Mr. Staveley must have had either prior experience as an expert, or certain formal degrees to be qualified as an expert is simply incorrect. For instance, Plaintiff seeks to exclude Mr. Staveley’s opinions regarding “human factors” on the grounds that Mr. Staveley is not an expert in “human factors.” While Mr. Staveley may not be a professional expert in the field of human factors, his deposition testimony clearly lays out the foundation for his expertise in his opinions, such as reaction time. “Q: No opinions regarding human factors; right? For instance, page 3 says the motion is based on Declarations of Ashely Dunn, Ph.D., P.E. and Austin G. Ward, who are not part of this case. 2 DEFENDANTS" OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF STEVEN H. STAVELEY OO 0 ~~ O N wn bh W N N N N R O N N N N D D mm e d pe d e m e d e d e e 0 ~~ O N WL B A W N = O N O N N N R W N e o 167191.docx A: Define “human factors.” Q: Perception-reaction time, what somebody would or would not have been able to perceive, anything like that? A: Well, I’m not sure, frankly. The part — so I will explain. Part of what we — we teach in the school and part of what racing drivers, which I have done a substantial amount of, learn is the ability that your — your eyes, as an example, contain two kinds of vision, peripheral and direct, or center, vision, which represents seven to nine percent of your vision. Now, am I an expert in biomechanics? No. But we certainly use those sorts of figures, that — that understanding and knowledge in teaching the emergency vehicle operations course, any of the individuals we do, and I use that constantly in my own driving skills. In other words, you have to turn your head in order — before you can turn the car, things like that. So to the extent, if it — you know, I don’t know that I'm an expert in that, but I am — certainly know a great deal about it in terms of the practical application for racing car drivers in EVOC instruction and what police officers need to do.” [Deposition of Steven H. Staveley, page 13, line 23 through page 14 line 21.] Thus, Mr. Staveley may testify as to his qualifications supporting his specific opinions, i.e. that Brownlee’s actions were reasonable and safe under the circumstances. Plaintiff further argues that Mr. Staveley was not designated to provide opinions regarding accident reconstruction or human factors. While this is generally correct, as evidenced by Mr. Staveley’s deposition and the questions asked therein by Plaintiff's counsel, some of Mr. Staveley’s opinions that are based on his special knowledge and expertise naturally overlap with areas that Plaintiff categorizes as “accident reconstruction” and “human factors.” In essence, Mr. Staveley’s opinions have foundational bases that may involve factors of accident reconstruction and human factors, which are well within his expertise. Furthermore, slight overlap regarding his reliance on light phasing is not so cumulative as to necessitate exclusion of the expert’s opinions as Plaintiff argues. Mr. Staveley’s ultimate opinion that Brownlee acted in a reasonable manner is based on the general, essentially undisputed timing of the light phasing and therefore, should be permitted. Ultimately however, the motion itself is impermissibly vague, and for those reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs motion in limine to limit Mr. Staveley’s opinions should be denied. 3 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF STEVEN H. STAVELEY II. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion in limine no. 7 should be denied. DATED: October 12,2017 MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney By: Brian L. Williams, Senior Trial Counsel Attorney for Defendants CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH and WILLIAM BROWNLEE © 0 NN O N wn Bs W N = N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m p m e d p e e e 0 J A N Wn pA W N N = OO VO N N N B R E W NN = Oo 167191.docx 4 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF STEVEN H. STAVELEY © 0 39 O&O wn BA WwW o N RN NN N N N N N N N N m e m e e e e e t e d p d e d e d 0 ~~ O N Wn A W O N = O OVO N Y N R E W N = O 167191.docx DECLARATION OF BRIAN L. WILLIAMS I, Brian L. Williams, declare as follows: kL I am an attorney at the office of the City Attorney for the City of Huntington Beach, attorneys for Defendants CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH and WILLIAM BROWNLEE (hereinafter “Defendants™). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon to testify, I could and would do so competently. 2 Attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit A are true and correct copies of relevant portions of the deposition of Steven Hutchings Staveley, taken on December 12, 2016. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 12% day of October, 2017, at Huntington Beach, California. BRIAN L. WILLIAMS 5 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF STEVEN H. STAVELEY EXHIBIT A EXPERT STEVEN HUTCHINGS STAVELEY, VOLUME I - 12/12/2016 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER SUNNY KANG, ) PLAINTIFF, ) VS. ) CASE NO. 30-2013- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH; ) 00626834-CU-PA-CJC HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT; } WILLIAM BROWNLEE; AND DOES 1 TO ) 100, INCLUSIVE, ) DEFENDANTS. ) VOLUME TIT ) (PAGES 1-134) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF EXPERT STEVEN HUTCHINGS STAVELEY MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2016 JOB NO. 90988 REPORTED BY: DIANE CARVER MANN, CLR, CSR NO. 6008 Personal Court Reporters, Inc. 800-43 -DEPOS oo 7 Exhibit A 15:06:47 15:06:51 15:07:00 15:07:06 15907: 13 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 EXPERT STEVEN HUTCHINGS STAVELEY, VOLUME I - 12/12/2016 you that you were told you would be providing opinions on? A No. Q So nothing about accident reconstruction? You didn't do any of that; right? A No. Q Is that correct? A That's correct. Q And you're not qualified to; right? A I do not think I am qualified. You are correct. Q These next series of questions are probably going to be pretty basic, but I've got to ask them. A Okay. Q You're not providing any testimony as an expert in biomechanics; correct? A No. Q Is that correct? A That's correct. Q Nothing to do with the medical field of any kind; right? A That's correct. Personal Court Reporters, Inc. 800-43 -DEPOS Page 13 8 Exhibit A 15:07:37 15:07:59 15:08:23 15:08:39 EXPERT STEVEN HUTCHINGS STAVELEY, VOLUME I - 12/12/2016 15:08:53 1 | or would not have been able to perceive, anything like 2 || that? 3 A Well, I'm not sure, frankly. The part -- so I 4 | will explain. Part of what we -- we teach in the school 5 | and part of what racing drivers, which I have done a 6 | substantial amount of, learn is the ability that your -- 7 | your eyes, as an example, contain two kinds of vision, 8 | peripheral and direct, or center, vision, which 9 | represents seven to nine percent of your vision. 10 Now, am I an expert in biomechanics? No. But 11 | we certainly use those sorts of figures, that -- that 12 | understanding and knowledge in teaching the emergency 13 | vehicle operations course, any of the individuals we do, 14 | and I use that constantly in my own driving skills. In 15 | other words you have to turn your head in order -- 16 | before you can turn the car, things like that. 17 So to that extent, if it -- you know, I don't 18 | know that I'm an expert in that, but I am -- certainly 19 | know a great deal about it in terms of the practical 20 | application for racing car drivers in EVOC instruction 21 | and what police officers need to do. 22 Q Okay. But as far as the discipline of human 23 | factors in regards to what standard perception-reaction 24 | times are, what somebody would or wouldn't be able to 25 | react to within a certain period of time, you don't have Personal Court Reporters, Inc. 800-43 -DEPOS Page 14 9 Exhibit A