Cotton v. City of Eureka

2 Citing cases

  1. Acosta v. Cal. Highway Patrol

    Case No. 18-cv-00958-BLF (N.D. Cal. Jun. 24, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    In addition, Mr. Clark's statement that Sergeant Hill's conduct was "reckless[]" is a determination within the province of the trier of fact and therefore improper. See Cotton v. City of Eureka, 2011 WL 4047490, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2011). However, the Court finds the remaining opinions in this paragraph warranted.

  2. Godinez v. Huerta

    Case No. 16-cv-0236-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. May. 1, 2018)   Cited 7 times
    Excluding Clark's opinions including "judicially defined or legally specialized terms" but allowing Clark to testify about whether a deputy's conduct comported with applicable procedures and policies

    It is inappropriate for an expert to attempt to intuit a party's subjective knowledge or "create a question of fact as to what [the party] actually knew." Cotton v. City of Eureka, No. C 08-04386 SBA, 2011 WL 4047490, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2011) (quoting Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 348 n.29 (5th Cir. 2006)). Defendant seeks to exclude Mr. Clark's opinions to the extent they concern Defendant's subjective knowledge or state of mind. (ECF No. 47 at 11.)