Bey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 RAQ BEY, Case No. 18-cv-02626-SI

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S v. MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S

EXPERT

JARED MALEC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 94 Defendants.

12 On February 12, 2020, plaintiff filed a document titled “Affidavit of Fact: Objection, Motion to Strike and Exclude Evidence & Disclosure of Steve Papenfuhs for Defendants.” Dkt. No. 94. Defendants designated Mr. Papenfuhs as an expert on police practices and have complied with all necessary disclosures. Mr. Papenfuhs is offered to opine on whether any use-of-force by the defendant officers conformed with generally accepted law enforcement practices, procedures, and training in the State of California. Dkt. No. 97 at 2 (Opposition). “[T]he trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). Federal Rule of…