Guerrero v. United States of America

Filing 100

ORDER granting 94 Motion to Amend/Correct; the following trial witnesses and exhibits will be added to Defendants disclosures:WITNESSES: 1.Michael Presnall- U.S. Department of Homeland Security.EXHIBITS:1.Immigration A-Files, Criminal History Reports, and Biographical information of plaintiff and plaintiffs identified Mexican national witnesses.. Signed by Judge James A Soto on 4/30/15.

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Guadalupe Guerrero, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-12-00370-TUC-JAS United States of America, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for leave to amend the final pretrial order (“PTO”). See Doc. 94. As discussed below, the motion is granted. 17 As relevant to Defendant’s current motion, the Court previously issued an Order 18 that stated in part: “On page 47 of the PTO, it appears that the Government objects to 19 paroling in several of Plaintiff’s witnesses as they were not made sufficiently available 20 for deposition during discovery. However, IT IS ORDERED that the Government may 21 still depose these witnesses prior to trial, and Plaintiff shall make these witnesses 22 available for depositions (if the Government still wants to depose them) at the Douglas 23 Port of Entry at least 30 days before trial. The Government’s objection is overruled, and 24 these witnesses shall be paroled in for trial.” See Doc. 90. 25 In the course of preparing for these depositions, Defendant discovered new 26 evidence which it seeks to add to the PTO. Plaintiff filed an opposition arguing in part 27 that Defendant could have discovered this information earlier, and allowing such 28 modification will unnecessarily add complications to the case and could cause delays. 1 A "district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 2 litigation, and its decisions . . . will not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of 3 discretion . . ." Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 4 2002).1 5 circumstances, be modified [to prevent manifest injustice]. . .” Mechmetals Corp. v. 6 Telex Computer Products, Inc., 709 F.2d 1287, 1294 (9th Cir. 1983). 7 treatment of the pre-trial order after entry requires an appropriate balance between 8 firmness to preserve the essential integrity of the order, and adaptability to meet changed 9 or newly discovered conditions or to respond to the special demands of justice.” Jeffries 10 v. U.S., 477 F.2d 52, 55 (9th Cir. 1973); see also Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 11 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (factors that are considered in modifying a final PTO include: “(1) the 12 degree of prejudice or surprise to the defendants if the order is modified; (2) the ability of 13 the defendants to cure any prejudice; (3) the impact of the modification on the orderly 14 and efficient conduct of the case; and (4) any degree of willfulness or bad faith on the 15 part of the party seeking the modification.”) “A pretrial order is not an inexorable decree and may, under proper The “proper 16 Based on the record before the Court, there does not appear to be any bad faith on 17 the part of the Government. Rather, as the Court authorized the depositions referenced 18 above, the Government began preparing for those depositions and discovered a new 19 witness that had relevant information, and additional documents came to light that could 20 also be relevant for trial. As soon as the Government became aware of the importance of 21 this information, the Government informed Plaintiff and sought to modify the PTO. As 22 to potential prejudice and the impact on the efficient conduct of the case, this appears to 23 be minimal as Plaintiff has leave to depose the new witness before trial and shall have an 24 opportunity to examine the additional documents before trial; trial is still nearly three 25 months away. In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for leave to amend the PTO 26 (Doc. 94) is granted; the following trial witnesses and exhibits will be added to 27 28 1 Unless otherwise noted by the Court, internal quotes and citations are omitted when quoting and citing cases throughout this Order. -2- 1 Defendant’s disclosures: 2 WITNESSES: 3 1. 4 EXHIBITS: 5 1. 6 plaintiff and plaintiff’s identified Mexican national witnesses. Michael Presnall- U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Immigration A-Files, Criminal History Reports, and Biographical information of 7 8 Dated this 30th day of April, 2015. 9 10 11 12 13 Honorable James A. Soto United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?