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.
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.)