NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANE DOE, a Pseudonym, No. 16-56722
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:15-cv-07503-MWF-JC
v.
DERRICK ROSE, an individual; MEMORANDUM*
RANDALL HAMPTON, an individual;
RYAN ALLEN, an individual; DOES, 1
through 10, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 16, 2018
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD, PARKER,** and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
In 2015, Doe sued Rose and two of his friends, Randall Hampton and Ryan
Allen, for $21.5 million for sexual battery, battery, and trespass. The jury trial
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
began on October 4, 2016. The district court emphasized that the issue for the trial
was whether Doe was capable of consenting to having sex with the three men on
August 27, 2013, in her apartment. At the close of the nine-day trial, the jury
found that the men were not liable on any of Doe’s claims. On appeal, Doe
challenges many of the district court’s evidentiary rulings. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.
B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091, 1103 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended
(Feb. 20, 2002). If we determine that the district court abused its discretion, we
then must “consider whether the error was harmless.” Estate of Barabin v.
AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457, 464 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (quotation
omitted); Obrey v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 691, 701 (9th Cir. 2005) (harmless error
occurs if “it is more probable than not that the jury would have reached the same
verdict even if the evidence had been admitted”). “An erroneous evidentiary ruling
requires reversal of a jury verdict only where ‘a party’s substantial rights were
affected.’” B.K.B., 276 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Beachy v. Boise Cascade Corp., 191
F.3d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir. 1999)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the text messages
referring to the sex belt. The district court found that the sex belt texts were
intertwined with evidence of Doe’s alleged sexual activity earlier in the night at the
2
mansion. The sex belt texts were potentially useful to the defense to explain their
theory of the case, attack Doe’s credibility, and as impeachment material. See S.M.
v. J.K., 262 F.3d 914, 920 (9th Cir. 2001) (courts must strike “an acceptable
balance between the danger of undue prejudice and the need to present the jury
with relevant evidence[.]” (quotation omitted)); see also Rodriguez-Hernandez v.
Miranda-Velez, 132 F.3d 848, 856 (1st Cir. 1998) (when performing the balancing
test under Rule 412(b)(2), the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing
defendants to introduce evidence directly relevant to their theory of the case).
Moreover, the district court limited evidence of the sex belt to the texts
concerning the belt and prohibited “any testimony about the specifics of the sex
belt, any pictures, [or] specifics of what activity it is used for,” noting that it was
“sufficient for the jury to know that a sex toy of some sort was brought to the
house.” See B.K.B., 276 F.3d at 1105 (“A timely instruction from the judge
usually cures the prejudicial impact of evidence unless it is highly prejudicial or
the instruction is clearly inadequate.” (quoting United States v. Berry, 627 F.2d
193, 198 (9th Cir. 1980)). After opening statements, the district court also told the
jury that any evidence of the sex belt was “a waste of time . . . [and] a distraction.”
Such instructions from the district court were sufficient to cure any potential
prejudice from admitting the sex belt texts into evidence. Berry, 627 F.2d at 198.
3
The district court also did not abuse its discretion by admitting the five
photos from the Las Vegas trip or by admitting Gabriela Chavez’s accompanying
testimony. The district court did not err in applying the Rule 403 balancing test,
and found that the probative value of the photos and testimony was not
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Moreover, the district court instructed the jury on the relevance of the testimony
regarding the photos, warning that the information was only relevant to the jury’s
calculation of emotional damages. See Berry, 627 F.2d at 198 (“A timely
instruction from the judge usually cures the prejudicial impact of evidence unless it
is highly prejudicial or the instruction is clearly inadequate.”). Chavez’s testimony
regarding Doe’s statements that the August 27, 2013 encounter was consensual
was also relevant, see Fed. R. Evid 403, and otherwise admissible, see Fed. R.
Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). See also United States v. Velarde, 528 F.2d 387, 389 (9th Cir.
1975) (testimony by witness about party opponent statement admissible under Rule
801(d)(2)(A)).
The district court’s decision to admit additional texts from June 2013 was
likewise not error. Doe “opened the door” to this evidence when she testified that
she never would have written in the manner she did on August 27, 2013, but for
her inebriation. See S.M., 262 F.3d at 920; see also Sheffield v. Hilltop Sand &
Gravel Co., 895 F. Supp. 105, 109 (E.D. Va. 1995) (“The Court cautions the
4
plaintiff, however, that this ruling will not protect her if she ‘opens the door’ to
such evidence by stating unequivocally that she never engaged in such conduct at
work.”). The district court therefore admitted only those additional texts that
would allow the jury to decide whether it believed that Doe never texted in the
manner that she did around the time of the incident. See S.M., 262 F.3d at 920
(limiting testimony to only that which plaintiff opened the door); see also Sheffield,
895 F. Supp. At 109 (limiting testimony under Rule 412).
Similarly, the district court did not err in excluding evidence of Doe’s prior
refusal to engage in group sexual activity. The court determined that evidence of
Doe’s prior refusal would open the door to other already-excluded evidence; the
district court was correct that it could not “selectively let in some of this evidence
and not the other.” The district court’s decision was well within the “broad range
of permissible conclusions,” and therefore was not unreasonable. Hung Lam v.
City of San Jose, 869 F.3d 1077, 1084 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Kode v. Carlson,
596 F.3d 608, 612 (9th Cir. 2010)).
The district court also did not err in excluding Doe’s later-in-time text
exchanges with Defendants. “The trial court has broad discretion regarding the
admission of prior consistent statements.” Breneman v. Kennecott Corp., 799 F.2d
470, 472 (9th Cir. 1986) (quotation omitted). The district court specifically found
that Doe’s statements made “a week afterwards, especially in light of the other
5
allegations in the case[,]” were no longer prior consistent statements of Doe’s
mental or emotional condition. See id. at 473, Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B).
Lastly, the district court properly excluded evidence that Allen called
massage parlors, escort services, and sex workers in the weeks following the
August 27, 2013 incident. The district court correctly found that the probative
value of this evidence was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Fed.
R. Evid. 403; see also United States v. Sangrey, 586 F.2d 1312, 1315 (9th Cir.
1978) (“As long as it appears from the record as a whole that the trial judge
adequately weighed the probative value and prejudicial effect of proffered
evidence before its admission, we conclude that the demands of Rule 403 have
been met.”).
Although this Court affirms the district court’s evidentiary decisions and the
judgment of the district court, it does not find that Doe’s attorneys brought a
frivolous appeal. As such, Defendants’ motion for sanctions is DENIED (Docket
No. 63). Plaintiff’s motion to file a late opposition brief is DENIED as MOOT
(Docket No. 76).
AFFIRMED.
6