Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad

District Court, S.D. California · 3:19-cv-02098 · 2021-01-14 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Myron James Lorenz (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T23:16Z · confidence high

The court considered Plaintiff's motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants' expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court denied the motion without prejudice, deeming it premature and directing the Plaintiff to raise the arguments in summary judgment briefing or a motion in limine.

What the court decided	The model
Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony Denied Without Prejudice “Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice as premature.”	agree with court The court's decision to deny the motion as premature is procedurally sound. In federal civil litigation, it is standard practice for courts to defer Daubert challenges until closer to trial (via motion in limine) or to address them in the context of summary judgment, rather than at the early discovery stage. This allows the court to consider the full record and the specific relevance of the expert's testimony to the issues that will actually be tried. The order explicitly provides the plaintiff with alternative avenues to raise the same arguments, ensuring no prejudice to the plaintiff's rights.

What the court decided

The model

Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony Denied Without Prejudice

“Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice as premature.”

agree with court
The court's decision to deny the motion as premature is procedurally sound. In federal civil litigation, it is standard practice for courts to defer Daubert challenges until closer to trial (via motion in limine) or to address them in the context of summary judgment, rather than at the early discovery stage. This allows the court to consider the full record and the specific relevance of the expert's testimony to the issues that will actually be tried. The order explicitly provides the plaintiff with alternative avenues to raise the same arguments, ensuring no prejudice to the plaintiff's rights.

The order itself: sound — The order is a short, procedural ruling that correctly identifies the motion as premature. It cites the relevant legal standard (Daubert) mentioned in the plaintiff's motion but does not need to apply it substantively because it is deferring the ruling. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural denial without prejudice.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE LUIS BARAJAS CENTENO, Case No.: 3:19-cv-2098-L-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY 14 CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 71]

16 17 18 19 Pending before the Court in this action alleging police use of excessive force 20 during arrest in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 is 21 Plaintiff's motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude the testimony of 22 Philip L. Sanchez, Defendants’ designated expert. (Doc. no. 71.) Defendants filed an 23 opposition. (Doc. no. 81.) For the reasons which follow, Plaintiff’s motion is denied 24 without prejudice. 25 Plaintiff argues Mr. Sanchez is not qualified to render an opinion regarding 26 Plaintiff’s arrest and use of force and that his opinions are not supported as required by 27 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 526 U.S. 137, 149 (1999), and its progeny. 28 Defendants dispute these contentions. 1 Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice as premature. Plaintiff may 2 ||incorporate his Daubert arguments in his summary judgment briefing or present them in 3 ||a motion in limine filed after the final pretrial conference. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 ||Dated: January 14, 2021 : 1 fee fp 8 H . James Lorenz, 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28