No. 19-2199 ___________________________

Bryce Masters

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v. City of Independence, Missouri; Tom Dailey; Bryce Blackmore

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants

Timothy Runnels

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

TASER International, Inc.; Patrick Smith

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants ___________________________

No. 19-2242 ___________________________

Bryce Masters

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v. City of Independence, Missouri; Tom Dailey; Bryce Blackmore

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants Timothy Runnels

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

TASER International, Inc.; Patrick Smith

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants ____________

Appeals from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________

Submitted: November 19, 2020 Filed: May 27, 2021 ____________ Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ KELLY, Circuit Judge.

Bryce Masters brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Independence, Missouri police officer Timothy Runnels used excessive force against him during a traffic stop.1 A jury found in favor of Masters and awarded him compensatory and punitive damages. Runnels appeals, arguing that the district court erred in denying (1) his motion for judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity and (2) his motion for a new trial based on the admission of testimony by two of Masters’s expert witnesses. Masters cross-appeals, arguing that the district court erred in granting Runnels’s request for a remittitur of a punitive

1 Masters sued other defendants in addition to Runnels, all of whom were dismissed from the case over the course of the proceedings. Only the claims against Runnels are at issue on appeal.

-2- damages award. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

I.

In the afternoon of September 14, 2014, Bryce Masters, then a 17-year-old high school senior, was driving his car on a residential street in Independence, Missouri.2 Timothy Runnels, a police officer with seven years’ experience in law enforcement, was on patrol in the area. He ran a license plate check on Masters’s car, which revealed an outstanding warrant apparently associated with the plate.3 Runnels then initiated a traffic stop.

After both cars stopped on the side of the road, Runnels approached Masters’s front passenger-side window and asked Masters to roll it down. Although the window was fully operable, Masters did not roll it down completely. Runnels then walked around to the opposite side of the car, opened the front driver-side door, and ordered that Masters get out of the car. Masters refused, asking, “For what?” and whether he was under arrest. Runnels told Masters he was under arrest, but he did not explain the reason. During the encounter, Runnels never told Masters why he had

2 These facts are based on the parties’ joint stipulation of facts, two video recordings of the incident (from the onboard dash camera of Runnels’s police car and the camera on Masters’s cell phone), and evidence introduced at trial. We consider the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving