On Aug. 15, 2008, plaintiff Tamara Johnston, 45, claimed that she was wrongfully arrested, wrongfully subjected to unwanted medical treatment and subject to a wrongful search and seizure by members of the Windsor Police Department, a contract agency of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department. She also claimed bruises and psychological from the incident. Johnston sued the county of Sonoma, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Bill Cogbill, and Deputies John Gillette, Jeffrey Toney and Juan Velencia. She alleged that the defendants violated her civil rights and used unreasonable excessive force. While Johnston was represented by prior counsel, the court dismissed her claims against the county, Cogbill and Velencia, and granted summary judgment as to the claims regarding wrongful arrest, wrongful search and seizure, and unwanted medical treatment. As such, the only remaining defendants at the time of trial were Gillette and Toney. At the time of trial, plaintiff’s counsel was only allowed to argue excessive force in the context of a lawful arrest. Additionally, the court granted motions in limine to exclude all expert testimony and to exclude the plaintiff’s lay witnesses, who had not been disclosed by prior counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel that tried the case noted that when they were substituted in as counsel just prior to trial, the universe of permissible evidence was already limited. Johnston claimed that she was in her own backyard when the deputies responded to a neighbor’s call regarding a possible domestic disturbance. She claimed that although they found no evidence of any domestic problem, the deputies entered her backyard to check on her welfare and that after seeing that she only had a skinned knee, the deputies insisted that she be seen by paramedics. Thus, Johnston claimed the deputies used hands-on force with her and later decided to arrest her for obstruction. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that under the circumstances, where the defendants were allegedly concerned about Johnston’s welfare and not faced with an ongoing crime or emergency, the deputies should have used words, not force. Counsel further contended that the right to detain someone is not a right to manhandle Johnston. Defense counsel argued that the deputies’ entry onto Johnston’s property, their arrest of her for violation of Penal Code §148(a), and the medic’s on-site review of Johnston were not violations of her civil rights. Gillette and Toney claimed that law enforcement and medical personnel were dispatched to Johnston’s home following a 911 emergency call regarding a domestic disturbance, wherein it was reported that the woman looked injured. They claimed that when they arrived, Johnston was found on the ground and initially unresponsive in her backyard. They further claimed that when Johnston did respond to an officer, who informed her that she would be evaluated by emergency medical technicians, she objected and tried to get around the officer by, in part, pushing him with her hands. Gillette and Toney claimed that Johnston was subsequently controlled and later arrested for obstructing, resisting and delaying an officer in the lawful course of his/her duties. They claimed that Johnston was then evaluated by medical personnel and then booked in the Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility. However, the charges against her were ultimately conditionally dismissed by the District Attorney’s Office., Johnston sustained bruises during the incident, but she claimed that her primary injury was emotional distress. However, her treating physicians were not permitted to testify as experts, or to disclose their diagnoses, because they had not been properly disclosed as experts by prior counsel. Johnston made no claim for wage loss or medical specials, and ultimately waived her claim for economic damages. Defense counsel denied that Johnston suffered damages, in any amount, by the deputies’ actions.