Johnson v. City of Santa Rosa et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN PAUL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SANTA ROSA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-02478-JSC
ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE
Jury trial on Plaintiff’s Section 1983 and related state law claims against the City of Santa
Rosa, Officer Sousa, and Officer O’Neill is scheduled to commence on January 5, 2026. The
Court held a pretrial conference on November 20, 2025.
I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE
A. Plaintiff’s Motions
1. Plaintiff’s Criminal History and Conduct
Plaintiff moves to exclude references to his prior arrest history and criminal
convictions. In particular, Plaintiff contends:
ii) Officer SOUSA learned about numerous other reports concerning
Plaintiff at the hospital, following the incident. SOUSA learned at the
hospital that (a) Plaintiff had allegedly violated a restraining order,
and (b) had had cocaine on his person at the time he was arrested.
(Dkt. No. 94 at 2.) Defendants represent they do not intend to admit evidence of Plaintiff’s
criminal history and interactions with the police which was “unknown to the officers on scene at
the date of the incidence.” (Dkt. No. 94 at 11.) Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to any
information Officers Sousa and O’Neill were not aware of at the time of the alleged excessive
Case 3:23-cv-02478-JSC Document 105 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 4

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of
 California
force, otherwise the motion is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s Intent to Commit Suicide by Cop (Dkt. No. 95)
Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence pertaining to “unverified reports that Defendants had
heard regarding Plaintiff wanted to commit ‘suicide by cop’” under Rule 403 as unduly
prejudicial. Defendants contend “SRPD Officer Safety Bulletin(s) indicated that Plaintiff “has
officer safety alerts---for threats, paranoia, and stating that he will make police shoot him.” The
motion is DENIED. Officers Souza and O’Neill may testify to their knowledge and
understanding of Plaintiff leading up to the March 23, 2022 incident. The prejudicial effect of
Defendants’ contemporaneous characterization of Plaintiff as threatening suicide by cop is not
more prejudicial than probative.
B. Defendants’ Motions
Plaintiff does not oppose any of Defendants’ motions in limine; so, all are GRANTED as
unopposed.
1. (Dkt. No. 86): to exclude reference to summary judgment
2. (Dkt. No. 87): to exclude unidentified witnesses or evidence
3. (Dkt. No. 88): to exclude reference to liability insurance
4. (Dkt. No. 89): to exclude reference to the full amount of Plaintiff’s medical bills.
5. (Dkt. No. 90): To Exclude Evidence or Argument Concerning Other Excessive
Force Claims, Actions, or Settlements Involving City of Santa Rosa or the
Santa Rosa Police Department.
II. Plaintiff’s Exhibit Objections
At the pretrial conference, Defendants withdrew the following exhibits from their exhibit
list: 34 through 40, 47, 50, and 51. Defendants also clarified any exhibits containing Defendants’
statements would be introduced only as prior consistent statements in the event Defendants are
impeached. Any other objections will be addressed at trial before the jury is brought in if
Defendants seek to use the exhibits.
//
//
//
Case 3:23-cv-02478-JSC Document 105 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 4

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of
 California
III. Other Pretrial Issues
A. Jury Selection
The parties should be provided by email the jury questionnaire responses by December 29,
2025. The next day the Court will issue an order which identifies any jurors the Court believes
should be excused for hardship. The parties should thereafter meet and confer on whether they
agree to excuse any jurors the Court identifies and/or they agree to exclude any additional jurors.
The Court will not excuse a juror from attending the January 5, 2026 jury selection unless all
parties agree to exclusion. The Court will hold a Zoom hearing with the parties on December 31,
2025 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss juror excusals and any other matters that need addressing before
January 5, 2026.
There will be eight jurors—all will deliberate. Once the Court gives some introductory
remarks, and addresses any further hardships, the first 20 jurors will be placed “in the box.” Each
side will be given 30 minutes to orally voir dire the 20 jurors. Then the Court will adjourn to side
bar to hear any for-cause challenges, and then, after a brief break, will move to peremptory
challenges. Each side has three peremptory challenges. After the jury of eight is sworn, there will
be a 45 minute lunch break, and then the trial will begin with opening instructions, openings, and
the first witness.
B. Trial Schedule
As previously discussed, the Court anticipates the trial schedule will be as follows:
• Monday, January 5, 2026: 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Tuesday, January 6, 2026: 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Wednesday, January 7, 2026: 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. (no lunch break)
• Thursday, January 8, 2026: 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. (no lunch break)
• Friday, January 9, 2026: 8:30 a.m. to conclusion of trial
Counsel and the parties should arrive by 8:15 a.m. each day to address any issues outside
the presence of the jury.
Prior to the trial, the parties should coordinate with Ms. Means to schedule an in-person
technology test to ensure all audio-visual presentations operate smoothly during trial.
Case 3:23-cv-02478-JSC Document 105 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 4

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of
 California
C. Joint Statement of the Case
The parties shall submit their joint statement of the case by December 18, 2025.
This Order disposes of Dkt. Nos. 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 94, and 95.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2025
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-02478-JSC Document 105 Filed 11/25/25 Page 4 of 4