Lawman v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01202

ORDER re Objections to Trial Exhibits. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 08/08/2016. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

4 Joseph S. May SBN 245924 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 1 LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH S. MAY City Attorney 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810 CHERYL ADAMS, State Bar #164194 2 San Francisco, CA 94109 Chief Trial Deputy Tel: (415) 781-3333 REBECCA BERS, State Bar #287111 3 Fax: (415) 707-6600 JAMES HANNAWALT, State Bar #139657 joseph@josephmaylaw.com Deputy City Attorneys 4 Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor 5 San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-4224 6 Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 E-Mail: rebecca.bers@sfgov.org 7 David M. Helbraun SBN 129840 Attorneys for Defendants HELBRAUN LAW FIRM City and County of San Francisco, Phillip M. 8 353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1140 Gordon, Glen Paul Minioza San Francisco, CA 94111 9 Tel. (415) 982-4000 Fax: (415) 986-1231 10 dmh@helbraunlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff GARY RICHARD 11 LAWMAN by and through his Guardian ad Litem Richard de Villiers 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 GARY RICHARD LAWMAN by and through Case No. 15-CV-01202 DMR his Guardian ad Litem Richard de Villiers, 16 ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO Plaintiff, TRIAL EXHIBITS 17 vs. 18 Trial Date: August 9, 2016 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 19 FRANCISCO, PHILLIP M. GORDON; GLEN PAUL MINIOZA; BRIAN W. KNEUKER; 20 CARLOS GUTIERREZ; CRAIG F. TOM; PATRICK F. PENE; JULIO C. PALENCIA; 21 ANDREW N. BROWN; PAUL E. RAPACAVOLI; MATTHEW M. O'SHEA; 22 MICHAEL HENNESSEY; GREG SUHR; ROEL L. LAPITAN; FRANK LATKO a.k.a. 23 FRANZI LATKO; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 1 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx 4 1 The court's rulings on the parties' objections to trial exhibits are set forth below. It is the 2 parties' responsibility to seek admission of exhibits into evidence during the trial. 3 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT LIST Sponsoring Defendant's Ruling on Objections 4 Description [Purpose] Witness Objection 5 CCSF's Supp. Response to Plaintiff's 1st Set of Special 6 1 Interrogatories (excerpts) CCSF [CCSF's claimed factual basis 7 for probable cause] CCSF's Response to 8 Plaintiff's 1st Set of Requests 9 2 for Admission [establishes CCSF Plaintiff was unable to answer 10 Officer Gordon's questions] Photos of Four Seasons Object to photos with Overruled, but 11 3 [location of arrest; gives jury Rodie/ Flores people in them Plaintiff must blur 12 context] faces Video of Four Seasons 13 4 residence lounge [location of Rodie/ Flores arrest; gives jury context] 14 911 call [does not report that 5 Mr. Lawman was an Flores 15 "intoxicated trespasser"] 16 911 call transcript [see 6 Flores Exhibit 5] 17 Radio traffic (3 recordings) 7 [no mention of Mr. Lawman CCSF 18 being "intoxicated"] 19 CAD report [shows that Officer Gordon was not 20 8 dispatched to the Four Gordon Seasons regarding an 21 "intoxicated trespasser"] 9 WITHDRAWN 22 10 WITHDRAWN 23 Public Intoxication Report, Dec., 31, 2011 [if admissible, 24 11 shows Gordon's purported Gordon observations] 25 26 Object to this Overruled. Plaintiff's Field Arrest Card [evidence document as Exhibit currently 12 Gordon 27 of 647(f) arrest] incomplete. Page includes CCSF-8. CCSF-8 (the reverse 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 2 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx 4 side of the card) is 1 excluded 2 Booking Card [evidence of 13 Gordon 647(f) arrest] 3 County Jail 1 Sobering Cell Observation Record [shows 4 14 CCSF vague observation by jail and nursing staff] 5 15 Triage Note Latko 6 County Jail 1: Cell Housing History [shows length of stay 7 16 CCSF in sobering cell for Plaintiff and Michael Moracha] 8 As to Bates 915, 919, Overruled. The court 9 921, and 941-948, will give a limiting Plaintiff did not instruction. 10 include these pages in the exhibit binders. 11 However, Defendants intend to admit this 12 portion of POST LD 13 37, and therefore do not object to this late 14 addition to Plaintiff's Exhibit List. 15 As to Bates 1015- 1048, Defendants 16 object pursuant to FRE 17 POST Learning Domain 37, 402, 403 because this Chapter 4 [SFPD training], Chapter is a detailed 17 CCSF/ Gordon 18 Bates Nos. 915, 919, 921, training on 5150, and 941-948, 1015-1052 contains no other 19 information that could 20 be relevant to plaitniff's case. See 21 Defendant's MIL No. 3 (Dkt. 150). Even if 22 the Court permits some questioning 23 regarding training as it 24 relates to 5150, this 33 page chapter on the 25 topic is irrelevant, duplicative, confusing, 26 and prejudicial to defendants. It would 27 be both prejudicial and 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 3 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx 4 a waste of time 1 because the jury could 2 spend time using the materials to evaluate 3 whether Mr. Lawman should have been 4 5150'ed – something they are not permitted 5 to do. 6 As to Bates 1049- 1057, Defendants 7 object to these pages under FRE 402, 403, 8 as irrelevant, prejudicial, confusing, 9 duplicative, and a 10 waste of time. These pages contain 11 summaries of various diagnoses that the jury 12 might be tempted to use to diagnose the 13 plaintiff. 14 Even the two pages Sustained. Plaintiff specifies of 15 this document are not relevant (FRE 402), 16 and should be 17 excluded under 403 for the reasons explained 18 in Defendant's MIL No. 3. First, training 19 about transporting prisoners is irrelevant 20 Arrest and Control Manual, because all claims Ch. 9, Prisoner Transportation 21 18 CCSF/ Gordon against Officer [police training], Bates Nos. Kneuker (the 638-639 22 transporting officer) have been dismissed. 23 There is no dispute that Plaintiff was 24 safely transported to 25 CJ1. Second, the pages specified by the 26 plaintiff relate specifically to 27 medically assessing a prisoner being 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 4 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx 4 transported, including 1 when to summon an 2 ambulance. The claim for failure to provide 3 medical care has been dismissed. The 4 information contained in these pages is not 5 relevant to any other 6 claim, but even if it could have some 7 arguable relevance, it is overly prejudicial 8 because it risks suggesting to the jury 9 that the officers should 10 have summoned an ambulance, or should 11 have had plaintiff medically evaluated. 12 Subject to Foundation Overruled, subject to FRE 402, 403 proper foundation. 13 14 There is a risk that the Commonly Asked Questions jurors will accord 15 About the ADA and Law CCSF/ more weight to this 19 Enforcement [police training], Minioza training manual than to 16 Bates Nos. 434-436 the instructions the 17 Court provides regardinig the law, 18 with respect to what the ADA requires. 19 20 WITHDRAWN 20 21 Diagram of County Jail 1 Subject to foundation Ruling deferred, 21 [location of sobering cell Latko subject to proper 22 where Plaintiff was held] foundation. S.F. Department of Public 23 22 Latko Health Policy: Sobering Cell 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 5 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx 4 Foundation, 402 and Sustained. 1 403 2 This training applies to 5150; it specifically 3 relates to psychologically 4 distressed adults who have not committed a 5 crime. 6 Even if the Court permits some 7 questioning regarding training as it relates to 8 SFPD Roll Call Training 5150, this training is 23 Lesson: Psych. Eval. of CCSF/ Gordon duplicative, irrelevant, 9 Adults-Part 1 [police training] confusing, and 10 prejudicial to defendants. It would 11 be both prejudicial and a waste of time 12 because the jury could spend time using the 13 materials to evaluate 14 whether Mr. Lawman should have been 15 5150'ed – something they are not permitted 16 to do. 17 S.F. Sheriff's Dep. County Jail #1 Operations Manual: 18 24 Sobering Cell [training re CCSF observation of sobering cell 19 inmates] Bates Nos. 840-843 FRE 402, 403 Sustained. 20 This training about 21 transporting prisoners is irrelevant because 22 all claims against Officer Kneuker (the 23 SFPD General Order 5.18: transporting officer) Prisoner Handling and 25 CCSF have been dismissed. 24 Transportation [police There is no dispute training] Bates Nos. 236-238 25 that Plaintiff was safely transported to 26 CJ1. Second, the pages specified by the 27 plaintiff include information about 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 6 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx 4 medically assessing a 1 prisoner being 2 transported, giving first aid, and 3 transporting prisoners to SFGH, all which 4 relates to dismissed claims. The pages also 5 relate to preventing 6 escape, and preventing injury to prisoners. 7 The information contained in these 8 pages is not relevant to any other claim, but 9 even if it could have 10 some arguable relevance, it is overly 11 prejudicial because it risks suggesting to the 12 jury that the officers should have 13 transported him to 14 SFGH, or should have had plaintiff medically 15 evaluated. FRE 402 403- Overruled. The court 16 This majority of this will give a limiting 17 General Order is not instruction. relevant, and would be 18 confusing to the jury because the focus is on 19 5150. See Defendant's MIL No. 3. Even if 20 the Court permits 21 SFPD General Order 6.14: some questioning Psychological Evaluation of regarding training as it 26 CCSF 22 Adults [police training] Bates relates to 5150, this Nos. 242-246 General Order is 23 duplicative, confusing, and prejudicial to 24 defendants. It would 25 be both prejudicial and a waste of time 26 because the jury could spend time using the 27 materials to evaluate whether Mr. Lawman 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 7 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx 4 should have been 1 5150'ed – something 2 they are not permitted to do. 3 FRE 402, 403 Overruled. This training pertains 4 to booking at district stations by SFPD, not 5 booking by Sheriff at 6 CJ1. It risks confusing SFPD Booking & Detention the jury about what 27 Manual, Sec. 8: Intoxicated CCSF 7 policies applied at Prisoners [police training] CJ1, where Plaintiff 8 was booked. Moreover, Plaintiff has 9 not shown that there is 10 any relevance to his Monell claim. 11 Foundation; FRE 402. Sustained. This training is not 12 relevant because it 13 relates to how to deal with someone 14 demonstrating threatening behavior 15 because of a disability. SFPD Roll Call Training This training is also 16 Lesson: ADA & Law inadmissible under 28 CCSF 17 Enforcement – part 1 [police FRE 403 because of training] the risk that the jurors 18 will accord more weight to this training 19 manual than to the instructions the Court 20 provides regardinig the 21 law, with respect to what the ADA 22 requires. Foundation, FRE 402, Overruled. The court 23 403 will give a limiting instruction. 24 SFPD Disabilities Awareness This Disabilities Guide: Psychiatric 25 Awareness Guide is 29 Disabilities (excerpts) [police CCSF not relevant, because training] Bates Nos. 262-263, 26 the excerpts the 265, 266, 288-290 Plaintiff has chosen 27 relate to 5150. See Defendant's MIL No. 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 8 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx 4 3. Even if the Court 1 permits some 2 questioning regarding training as it relates to 3 5150, the portions Plaintif fhas chosen 4 from this handbook are duplicative, confusing, 5 and prejudicial to 6 defendants. It would be both prejudicial and 7 a waste of time because the jury could 8 spend time using the materials to evaluate 9 whether Mr. Lawman 10 should have been 5150'ed – something 11 they are not permitted to do. 12 Moreover, Sergeant Kruger testified that 13 this handbook is 14 merely information, officers are not 15 required to be familiar with its contents, and it 16 is not used as a part of training. (Kruger 17 Deposition, 85:8-19.) 18 OCC Policy Recommendation Foundation Ruling deferred, 06.19.2003 [CCSF's notice of subject to proper 19 30 CCSF constitutional deprivations foundation. through 647(f) arrests] 20 American Academy of Objection, FRE 802, Ruling deferred, 21 Psychiatry and the Law hearsay pending testimony. Ethical Guidelines 31 Keram 22 [impropriety of rendering psychiatric opinions without a 23 personal examination] 24 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT LIST 25 A Plaintiff's Public Intoxication Sergeant No objection; Plaintiff Report, dated December 31, Gordon stipulates to admit. 26 2011 (BATES NO. CCSF 11) B CAD Audio folder 2917 12- Sergeant No Objection; Plaintiff 27 31-11, consisting of 4 WAV Gordon, stipulates to admit. 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 9 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx 4 files Officer 1 1) 2117-2118 DP01.wav Minioza, DEM 2 2) 2118-2119 DP12.wav custodian of 3) 2129-2138 DP16.wav records 3 4) 2154-2155 DP12 (BATES NO. CCSF 6) 4 C SFPD CAD Report Custodian of No Objection; Plaintiff S113652917 (CCSF 34) Records, DEM stipulates to admit. 5 D Plaintiff's Field Arrest Card, Custodian of No Objection; Plaintiff 6 dated December 31, 2011 Records, SFSD stipulates to admit. (BATES NO. CCSF 7-8) 7 E Plaintiff's Booking Card, Custodian of No Objection; Plaintiff dated December 31, 2011 Records, SFSD stipulates to admit. 8 (BATES NO. CCSF 9-10) 9 F Plaintiff's Sobering Cell Deputy No Objection; Plaintiff Observation Record, dated Rappicavoli, stipulates to admit. 10 December 31, 2011 (BATES Nurse Lapitan, NO. CCSF 12) Custodian of 11 Records, SFSD G Plaintiff's Jail Medical Nurse Latko No Objection to Bates 12 Services records, dated No. CCSF 41; Plaintiff 13 December 31, 2011 stipulates to admit. (BATES NO. CCSF 35-41) 14 H Sobering Cell Housing Custodian of No Objection; Plaintiff History, dated December 31, Records, SFSD stipulates to admit. 15 2011 (BATES NO. CCSF 42) Q DPH Jail Health Services Matt Friedman, No Objection; Plaintiff 16 Policy No. 303, Sobering Nurse Zeff, stipulates to admit. 17 Cell, rev July 2010 (BATES Nurse Lapitan, NO. CCSF 459-460) Custodian of 18 Records, DPH R POST Learning Domain 6, Lt. Jack Hart, Objection. FRCP Sustained. 19 Property Crimes, version 5, Mr. Jeffrey 37(c)(1): this 20 2008, Chapter 3: "Identifying Martin document was not and Classifying Crimes identified in 21 Related to Trespassing|" Defendants' Rule 26 Pages 3-1 to 3-12 disclosure and was not 22 produced in discovery. Relevance: only a few 23 portions of this 24 document potentially relate to issues 25 involved in this case. S POST Learning Domain 37, Lt. Jack Hart, No Objection; Plaintiff 26 Persons with Disabilities, Mr. Jeffrey stipulates to admit. version 4, Chapter 1 1-1 to 1- Martin 27 10 (BATES NO. CCSF 939- 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 10 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx 4 948) 1 T POST Learning Domain Lt. Jack Hart, Objection; relevance, Overruled. The court 2 8.01.E05, Public Intoxication Mr. Jeffrey 403. The document will give a limiting (BATES NO. CCSF 1058- Martin includes drug instruction. 3 1060) intoxication and obstruction of public 4 way as bases for 647(f) arrest; however, 5 the Court has 6 precluded reference to these elements and 7 inclusion of this entire document would be 8 misleading and 9 confusing to the jury, and therefore unduly 10 prejudicial to Plaintiff. U SFPD Statistics 2005-2014, Jeanne Foundation; hearsay; Overruled, subject to 11 Misdemeanor Arrests Chisholm relevance; requires proper foundation. (BATES NO. CCSF 1784) expert testimony. 12 Jeanne Chisholm was 13 not designated as an expert witness and 14 Defendants did not designate any expert in 15 statistical analysis. Ms. Chisholm may not 16 testify "as to the 17 statistical significance" of arrest data, even 18 assuming such data is admissible. Shea v. 19 Kerry, 961 F. Supp. 2d 17, 50 (D. D.C. 2013). 20 Plaintiff requests a 21 hearing under FRE 104 prior to 22 introduction of this evidence at trial 23 V San Francisco Area Map Sgt. Gordon, Relevance. Ruling deferred, (BATES NO. CCSF 1785) Officer pending testimony. 24 Minioza 25 Y Plaintiff's Verified Responses N/A No Objection. Plaintiff Y to CCSF's Special stipulates to admit. 26 Interrogatories, Set 1, served December 12, 2014 27 B San Francisco Public Jeffrey Martin Lack of foundation Overruled, subject to 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 11 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx 4 B Intoxication Arrests and/or authentication; proper foundation. 1 B Compared to Other Cities relevance; FRE 403; 2 (Exhibit C to the Deposition FRCP 37 (this of Jeffrey Martin) document was never 3 identified or produced as part of Defendants' 4 Rule 26 disclosures; instead, it was handed 5 to Plaintiff's counsel 6 for the first time at Mr. Martin's deposition). 7 C Treatment records of Harry Dr. Motro Relevance; hearsay; Sustained. C Motro, Psy.D (Exhibit 41 to foundation; FRE 403. 8 C the Deposition of Harry Motro, Psy.D) 9 M SFSD Sobering Cell Policy, Chief Deputy No Objection. Plaintiff 10 M revised March 17, 2011 Matthew stipulates to admit. M (CCSF 840-843) Freeman, 11 Custodian of Records, SFSD 12 N Photo 1 of Four Seasons John Flores, Objection. The Court Overruled, but 13 N lobby Four Seasons has indicated that the Defense must crop or N security; John sign outside the lounge blur "private" sign. 14 Rodie, Four may not be part of the Seasons exhibit. 15 concierge; Dwight Moore, 16 City 17 Investigator O Photo 2 of Four Seasons John Flores, No Objection; Plaintiff 18 O lobby Four Seasons stipulates to admit. O security; John 19 Rodie, Four Seasons 20 concierge; Dwight Moore, 21 City Investigator 22 P Photo 3 of Four Seasons John Flores, No Objection; Plaintiff P lobby Four Seasons stipulates to admit. 23 P security; John Rodie, Four 24 Seasons concierge; 25 Dwight Moore, City 26 Investigator Q Photo 4 of Four Seasons John Flores, No Objection; Plaintiff 27 Q lobby Four Seasons stipulates to admit. Q security; John 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 12 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx 4 Rodie, Four 1 Seasons concierge; 2 Dwight Moore, City 3 Investigator R Photo 5 of Four Seasons John Flores, Objection. The Court Overruled, but 4 R lobby Four Seasons has indicated that the Defense must crop or R security; John sign outside the lounge blur "private" sign. 5 Rodie, Four Seasons may not be part of the 6 concierge; exhibit. Dwight Moore, 7 City Investigator 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 S Photo 6 of Four Seasons John Flores, Objection. The Court Overruled, but S lobby Four Seasons has indicated that the Defense must crop or 22 security; John S sign outside the lounge blur "private" sign. Rodie, Four 23 Seasons may not be part of the concierge; exhibit. 24 Dwight Moore, City 25 Investigator 26 27 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 13 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx 4 ISTRIC TES D TC TA O S U ED IT IS SO ORDERED. RT ERED 1 ORD UNIT T IS SO Dated: August 8, 2016 2 I R NIA ______________________________________ 3 DONNA M. RYU yu na M. R NO onJudge United States Magistrate Judge D FO 4 RT LI 5 ER H A N C F 6 D IS T IC T O R 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT EXHIBIT LIST AND OBJECTIONS 14 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\dmrall\_cv\2015\2015_01202_ CASE NO. 15-CV-01202 DMR lawman_v_city_and_county_of_san_francisco\15-cv-01202-dmr- draft_order_with_rulings_on_objs_to_exhibits_080816.docx