finding district court’s analysis “fell short of the fact- 16 intensive inquiry” required by qualified immunity precedent
How later courts described this case
- finding district court’s analysis “fell short of the fact- 16 intensive inquiry” required by qualified immunity precedent
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
10
ELISABETH REHN, an individual, Case No. 2:23-cv-01609-RAJ
11
Plaintiff, ORDER
12
v.
13
CITY OF SEATTLE, a lawful
14 municipal corporation in the State of
Washington; RILEY CAULFIELD;
15 YOUNGHUN KIM; SETH
WAGNER; JOHN DUUS; AND
16 JASON DRUMMOND,
17 Defendants.
18
I. INTRODUCTION
19
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
20
Reconsideration, Dkt. # 57, Defendants’ Motion to Stay or Continue Trial, Dkt. # 62,
21
Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Appeal Frivolous, Dkt. # 64, and Defendants’ Motion to
22
Permit Response to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Filing, Dkt. # 70. The Court has reviewed
23
the motions, the submissions in support of and in opposition to the motions, and the
24
balance of the record. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’
25
Motion to Stay or Continue Trial and DENIES the remaining motions.
26
1
2 II. BACKGROUND
3 This case arises from officers Riley Caufield, Younghun Kim, and Seth
4 Wagner’s (the “Officer Defendants”) mistaken entry into Plaintiff Elisabeth Rehn’s
5 apartment. The specific facts are set out in more detail in the Court’s July 1, 2025 order.
6 See Dkt. # 56. In that order, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude the
7 testimony of Ms. Rehn’s police practices expert, Sue Peters. Id. at 5–8. The Court also
8 granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, including
9 denying Defendants’ motion based on qualified immunity. Id. at 16–17. Defendants
10 timely appealed the denial of qualified immunity. Dkt. # 59. The trial in this case is
11 currently set for February 9, 2026. Dkt. # 55.
12 Currently before the Court are several motions resulting from the July 1, 2025
13 order. First, on July 15, 2025, Ms. Rehn filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s order
14 excluding Ms. Peters’s expert testimony. Dkt. # 57. Second, on August 12, 2025,
15 Defendants filed a motion to stay or continue the trial pending resolution of their appeal.
16 Dkt. # 62. Third, on August 19, 2025, Ms. Rehn filed a motion to certify Defendants’
17 appeal as frivolous. Dkt. # 64. Fourth, on October 16, 2025, Defendants filed a motion
18 for leave to respond to Ms. Rehn’s supplemental filing. Dkt. # 70. The supplemental
19 filing attached a copy of Defendants’ opening brief filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of
20 Appeals. Dkt. # 69.
21 III. DISCUSSION
22 A. Motion for Reconsideration
23 Ms. Rehn argues the Court’s order excluding Ms. Peters’s expert testimony
24 constitutes manifest error because it misapplied Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Daubert,
25 and other cases interpreting Daubert in the context of non-scientific experts. Dkt. # 57.
26
1 Defendants argue the Court “properly excluded Ms. Peters because she failed to satisfy
2 the reliability requirement when she did ‘not explain how her knowledge or experience
3 supports her stated opinions.’” Dkt. 60 at 3 (quoting Dkt. # 56).
4 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h). “The court will
5 ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior
6 ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to
7 its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. “The term ‘manifest error’ is ‘an error
8 that is plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling
9 law or the credible evidence in the record.’” Gaskill v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. 11-cv-
10 5847, 2012 WL 13026638, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 28, 2012) (quoting Black’s Law
11 Dictionary 622 (9th ed. 2009)).
12 Much of Ms. Rehn’s arguments appear to conflate reliability (the basis for the
13 Court’s order excluding Ms. Peters) with relevance and qualification. For example, Ms.
14 Rehn argues Federal Rule of Evidence 702 is “primarily about relevance, not
15 methodology” and that the Court “discount[ed] Ms. Peters’s 29 years of experience.”
16 Dkt. # 57 at 4. The very cases cited by Ms. Rehn confirm, however, that reliability is a
17 distinct and necessary requirement for admission of expert testimony. See Daubert v.
18 Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993) (stating Rules of Evidence “assign
19 to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable
20 foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.”); United States v. Holguin, 51 F.4th 841,
21 854 (9th Cir. 2022) (“A district court must distinguish an expert’s qualifications from the
22 reliability of the expert’s principles and methods.”) (emphasis in original). While Ms.
23 Rehn is correct that an expert may testify based on personal knowledge and experience,
24 the trial court must nevertheless assess the reliability of that expert’s opinion by
25 considering factors such as “whether the expert’s experience supports the expert’s
26
1 conclusions; whether the expert’s reasoning is circular, speculative, or otherwise flawed;
2 or whether the expert’s reasoning is adequately explained.” Holquin, 51 F.4th 841 at 855
3 (internal citations omitted).
4 The Court found Ms. Peters’s expert report “does not satisfy the reliability
5 requirement of Evidence Rule 702 because it does not explain how her knowledge or
6 experience supports her stated opinions.” Dkt. # 56 at 7. Critically, Ms. Peters’s expert
7 opinion centers on the Officer Defendants’ alleged failure to engage in “necessary
8 investigative steps” and “basic police practices of address verification,” but her report
9 never explains her own knowledge or experience with police address verification. Id.
10 The Court therefore cannot determine that her knowledge or experience reliably supports
11 her conclusions. This was an accurate application of the trial court’s gate-keeping role
12 under Rule 702, Daubert, and its progeny, and was not manifest error.
13 Ms. Rehn is also incorrect that the Court excluded Ms. Peters’s opinions “solely
14 because she did not analyze ‘relevant policy, training, or best practices.’” Dkt. # 57 at 4.
15 As explained above and in the Court’s order, the Court excluded Ms. Peters’s opinions
16 because she failed to provide any connection between her law enforcement experience
17 (primarily as a major crimes detective) and her opinion that Defendants failed to engage
18 in proper address verification protocol when responding to a 911 call. Discussing
19 relevant policy, training, or best practices was only one of many ways Ms. Peters could
20 have satisfied the reliability requirement of Rule 702. The ultimate issue was that Ms.
21 Peters provided no foundation to link her expertise to her opinions in this case.
22 B. Motion to Stay and Motion to Certify Appeal Frivolous
23 Next, Defendants ask the Court to stay or continue the current February 9, 2026
24 trial date pending resolution of their appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. # 62. Defendants
25 argue it is an inefficient use of judicial resources to proceed with the currently scheduled
26
1 trial while the issue of qualified immunity is on appeal. Id. Ms. Rehn responds that she
2 “agrees that a stay should be granted if the Court of Appeals accepts jurisdiction over the
3 individual defendants’ interlocutory appeals.” Dkt. # 63 at 2. She argues, however, that
4 the Ninth Circuit will not accept jurisdiction because Defendants’ appeal is frivolous. Id.
5 Ms. Rehn separately filed a motion asking this Court to certify that the appeal is frivolous.
6 Dkt. # 64.
7 In qualified immunity cases, appellate courts “typically have jurisdiction over
8 interlocutory appeals from the denial of summary judgment.” Estate of Anderson v.
9 Marsh, 985 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir. 2021). The scope of appellate review in such cases
10 is limited. Id. “Any portion of a district court’s summary judgment order that, though
11 entered in a qualified immunity case, determines only a question of evidence sufficiency,
12 i.e., which facts a party may, or may not, be able to prove at trial . . . is not appealable.”
13 Id. at 730–31 (quoting Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995)) (internal quotation
14 marks omitted). In contrast, appellate courts “may properly review a denial of qualified
15 immunity where a defendant argues . . . that the facts, even when considered in the light
16 most favorable to the plaintiff, show no violation of a constitutional right, or no violation
17 of a right that is clearly established in law.” Ames v. King County, 846 F.3d 340, 347
18 (9th Cir. 2017).
19 When defendants appeal a denial of qualified immunity and the “district court
20 find[s] that the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is frivolous or has been waived,
21 the district court may certify, in writing, that defendants have forfeited their right to
22 pretrial appeal, and may proceed with trial.” Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th
23 Cir. 1992). “An appeal is frivolous ‘when the result is obvious or the appellant’s
24 arguments are wholly without merit.’” Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 796
25
26
1 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Glanzman v. Uniroyal, Inc., 892 F.2d 58, 61
2 (9th Cir. 1989)).
3 Here, Defendants’ appeal is properly limited to legal questions related to the denial
4 of qualified immunity, and is not frivolous. Defendants argue “the Court and Plaintiff
5 defined the breadth of the Fourth Amendment right at issue too broadly” and there is no
6 clearly established law that prohibited the Officer Defendants’ entry into Ms. Rehn’s
7 home under the circumstances. Dkt. # 65 at 2. Interpretation of the scope of the Fourth
8 Amendment right at issue and whether there was clearly established law governing the
9 defendants’ actions are appropriate questions of law for an interlocutory appeal. See
10 Ames, 846 F.3d at 347. Defendants also argue that “in denying the Officer Defendants’
11 qualified immunity at summary judgment, the Court did not examine the constitutional
12 liability for each individual officer.” Dkt. # 65 at 2–3. Whether the trial court followed
13 the correct analytical framework in assessing qualified immunity likewise presents a legal
14 question that can be addressed on an interlocutory appeal. See Cunningham v. Gates,
15 229 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding district court’s analysis “fell short of the fact-
16 intensive inquiry” required by qualified immunity precedent). Moreover, based on a
17 review of Defendants’ response brief, the Court finds that Defendants’ arguments on
18 appeal are made in good faith and are not frivolous. Ms. Rehn’s arguments to the contrary
19 go to the ultimate merits of Defendants’ appeal, but does not establish that the appeal is
20 unfounded. Accordingly, the Court denies Ms. Rehn’s motion to certify the appeal as
21 frivolous.
22 Turning to Defendants’ motion to stay, Ms. Rehn’s response to that motion states
23 she “agrees that a stay should be granted if the Court of Appeals accepts jurisdiction over
24 the individual defendants’ interlocutory appeals.” Dkt. # 63 at 2. Ms. Rehn’s only
25 argument that the Court of Appeals would decline jurisdiction is that the appeal is
26
1 frivolous. Because the Court does not find the appeal frivolous, and because it agrees
2 with Defendants that a stay will promote efficient use of judicial resources, the Court
3 grants Defendants’ motion to stay.
4 Finally, Ms. Rehn filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching a copy of
5 Defendant’s opening brief filed on appeal. Dkt. # 69. Defendants filed a motion to permit
6 a response to this supplemental filing. Dkt. # 70. Because the Court finds Defendants’
7 motion to stay and Ms. Rehn’s motion to certify may be resolved without additional
8 briefing, the Court denies the motion to permit a response as moot.
9 IV. CONCLUSION
10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay or
11 Continue Trial, Dkt. # 62, and ORDERS that the trial date and all remaining pretrial
12 deadlines are STAYED pending disposition of the appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court
13 of Appeals. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. # 57,
14 Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Appeal Frivolous, Dkt. # 64, and Defendants’ Motion to
15 Permit Response to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Filing, Dkt. # 70.
16
17 Dated this 28th day of October, 2025.
18 A
19
20 The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26