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.

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-