Antoine

Antoine v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
566 F. Supp. 2d 1045·2008 WL 2561583·2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70276
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 26, 2008CIV. S-06-01349 WBS GGHCalifornia3,135 words

Opinion

Opinion

Shubb, J.

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Following the return of a jury verdict awarding plaintiff $20,000 in compensatory damages as well as $25,000 in punitive damages against each of defendants Baker, Reeve, Wade and Britton and $50,000 against defendant Griem, all individual defendants move for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DISCUSSION

I. Liability Issues

A. Evidentiary Rulings

Plaintiff’s expert witness, Jeffrey Schwartz, was qualified to express expert opinions under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and it would have been error to preclude him from testifying altogether. It is always a difficult task to keep expert witnesses on track, given that most of them consider it part of their job to effectively advocate the position of the side that hired them. This witness was no exception. Nevertheless, the court did the best it could to keep his testimony on point, ruling on objections when made and even commenting on the testimony when it was felt necessary.

Although defendants’ attorney argues that the court should have prevented the witness from opining about “nationally accepted correctional practices,” it was the witness’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.