Tater-Alexander v. Amerjan et al

Filing 287

MEMORANDUM Decision and Order Re Defendant's Motion to Add Witnesses and Evidence signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 4/15/2011. (Proposed Order Consistent with Memorandum Decision Deadline: 4/27/2011) (Figueroa, O)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6

MICHAEL TATER-ALEXANDER,

1:08-cv-00372 OWW SMS

Plaintiff,

7

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ADD
WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE

8

v.

9

LONNIE R. AMERJAN, CITY OF CLOVIS,
TINA STIRLING, COMMUNITY REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER, DR. THOMAS E.
MANSFIELD, MARY JO GREENE, and
DOES 1 through 100.

10
11

(DOCS. 252).

12
13
14
15
16

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center dba

17

Community Regional Medical Center (“Defendant”) moves to add

18

witnesses and evidence that were not listed in the Supplemental

19

Joint Pre-Trial Statement (Doc. 211), but were included in the

20

Final Pre-Trial Order (Doc. 271). Doc. 252. Plaintiff opposes the

21
22

motion. Doc. 269. The matter was heard March 28, 2011.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

23
24
25

Plaintiff proceeds with this action for damages and
equitable relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act

26

(“ADA”), Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Disabled Persons

27

Act (“DPA”), First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Bane Civil

28
1

1
2
3
4

Rights Act.
Plaintiff filed a complaint on March 14, 2008, amendments to
the complaint, and a third amended complaint (“TAC”) on May 27,
2009 (Doc. 72). On January 28, 2011, summary judgment was granted

5
6
7

on all claims asserted against Corporal Amerjan, Officer
Sterling, and the City of Clovis. Doc. 205. On February 16, 2011,

8

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Dr. Mansfield with prejudice.

9

Doc. 246.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

A pretrial conference was held January 31, 2011. The court
ordered the parties to submit a Supplemental Joint Pre-Trial
Statement by February 4, 2011, and they did so. Doc. 211. On
February 7, 2011, Defendant filed an Addition to the Exhibits to
the Supplemental Joint Pretrial Statement. Doc. 213. A Final
Pretrial Order was entered March 22, 2011. Doc. 271.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A pretrial schedule may be modified “only for good cause and

19

with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “A district

20

judge is given broad discretion in supervising the pre-trial

21
22
23
24

phase of litigation . . . .” Campbell Indus. v. M/V Gemini, 619
F.2d 24, 27 (9th Cir. 1980) (quoting FDIC v. Glickman, 450 F.2d
416, 419 (9th Cir. 1971). District courts should generally allow

25

amendments of pre-trial orders when “no substantial injury will

26

be occasioned to the opposing party, the refusal to allow the

27

amendment might result in injustice to the movant, and the

28

2

1

inconvenience to the court is slight.” Campbell, 619 F.2d at 27-

2

28 (quoting Angle v. Sky Chef, Inc., 535 F.2d 492, 495 (9th Cir.

3

1976)).

4

IV.

ANALYSIS

5
6
7

A. Ramon Flores, R.N., Adam Perez, Brian Pond, Garrett Waterson
Defendant moves to add four witnesses to the Final Pretrial

8

Statement: (1) Nurse Flores; (2) Officer Adam Perez; (3) Officer

9

Brian Pond; and (4) Officer Garrett Waterson. Nurse Flores and

10

the Officers would testify regarding Plaintiff’s visit to

11

Defendant’s Emergency Department on September 6, 2009, Nurse

12
13

Flores’ notes from the visit, and the Officers’ incident report
from the visit. Defendant contends that these witnesses’

14
15
16

testimonies demonstrate Plaintiff’s bias against the hospital.
Plaintiff rejoins that he filed another lawsuit arising from

17

the September 6, 2009 incident, and Defendant’s request to add

18

Nurse Flores and Officers Perez, Pond and Waterson contravenes

19

the court’s grant of Plaintiff’s motion in limine number 5 (to

20

preclude evidence of other claims and/or lawsuits).

21

The 2003 Advisory Committee Notes to FRE 608 state that “the

22
23
24

admissibility of extrinsic evidence offered for other grounds of
impeachment (such as contradiction, prior inconsistent statement,

25

bias and mental capacity)” are governed by Rules 402 and 403.

26

Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Fed. R. Evid.

27

402. “’Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to

28

3

1

make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the

2

determination of the action more probable or less probable than

3

it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. “Although

4

relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is

5
6
7

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by

8

considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless

9

presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.

10
11
12
13

Defendant asserts that it recently discovered Plaintiff’s
intention to use evidence of his September 6, 2009 visit to
demonstrate his repeated visits to the hospital, for purposes of
obtaining injunctive relief. Defendant contends that if Plaintiff

14
15

introduces evidence of the September 6, 2009 visit, Defendant

16

should be permitted to discuss Plaintiff’s behavior during that

17

visit.

18

The testimony of Nurse Flores and Officers Perez, Pond and

19

Waterson is relevant to show Plaintiff’s bias and impeach his

20

testimony. Its relevance is potentially outweighed by the risk of

21

prejudice. The parties can stipulate that Plaintiff has visited

22
23
24

the hospital a number of times and is likely to visit the
hospital again. If the parties cannot agree to this stipulation

25

and Plaintiff introduces evidence of the September 6, 2009 visit,

26

Nurse Flores and Officers Perez, Pond and Waterson shall testify.

27

To provide otherwise would result in injustice to Defendant.

28

4

1
2
3
4

Defendant’s motion to add Nurse Flores and Officers Perez,
Pond and Waterson as witnesses is GRANTED.
B. Hospital Gown and Blanket
Defendant moves to add two exhibits to the Final Pretrial

5
6
7

Statement: (1) an example of the hospital gown Plaintiff refused
to wear; and (2) a blanket of the type kept in a warming oven in

8

Defendant’s Emergency Department to provide to cold patients.

9

Defendant’s counsel states it first thought to include these

10

items on February 2, 2011, and picked them up from Defendant on

11

February 3, 2011. Defendant contends that it inadvertently did

12
13

not submit these items to Plaintiff’s counsel for inclusion in
the Supplemental Joint Pre-Trial Statement, but filed an Addition

14
15
16
17

to Exhibit to Supplemental Joint Pre-Trial Statement on February
7, 2011. Doc. 213.
Plaintiff argues that the court previously granted

18

Plaintiff’s motion in limine number 14, which excludes evidence

19

not produced during discovery. Plaintiff asserts that this motion

20

is an impermissible attack on the court’s prior order.

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides

22
23
24

that a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide
to the other parties “a copy--or a description by category and

25

location--of all documents, electronically stored information,

26

and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its

27

possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims

28

5

1

or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.”

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) specifies the parties’ duty

3

to supplement or correct their disclosures. Federal Rule of Civil

4

Procedure 37(c)(1) provides:

5
6
7
8
9
10

If a party fails to provide information or identify a
witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not
allowed to use that information or witness to supply
evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless
the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
Seeing the hospital gown and blanket might help the jury

11

understand the case. Admitting the blanket and gown will neither

12

prejudice Plaintiff nor inconvenience the court. The gown and

13

blanket may be added to Defendant’s exhibit list. Defendant shall

14

make the gown and blanket available to Plaintiff for inspection

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

and testing.
Defendant’s motion to add a hospital gown and blanket to its
list of evidence is GRANTED.
C. Mary Contreras and David Arguijo
Defendant moves to add two witnesses to the Final Pretrial
Statement: (1) Mary Contreras, Defendant’s Chief Nursing Officer;
and (2) David Arguijo, Director of Admissions for Community
Regional Medical Center. Nurse Contreras is expected to testify:
(a) that she determines the need for, and is involved in

26

promulgating, policies for the nursing personnel; (b) that she

27

receives input from the Risk Management and Legal departments

28

when determining whether a new policy is needed; and (c) that the
6

1

hospital has no intent to discriminate against people with

2

disabilities or to ignore any laws relating to them. Mr. Arguijo

3

is expected to testify regarding admission procedures at the

4

hospital.

5
6
7

Plaintiff has taken Nurse Contreras’ and Mr. Arguijo’s
depositions and does not oppose Defendant’s motion. Adding Nurse

8

Contreras and Mr. Arguijo will not injure or prejudice the

9

Plaintiff or inconvenience the court. Refusing to add them may

10

result in injustice to Defendant.

11
12

Defendant’s motion to add Nurse Contreras and Mr. Arguijo as
witnesses is GRANTED.

13

V. CONCLUSION

14
15

For the reasons stated:

16

1. Defendant’s motion to add witnesses and evidence is GRANTED.

17

2. Defendant shall submit a proposed form of order consistent

18

with this memorandum decision within five (5) days of

19

electronic service of this memorandum decision.

20
21
22
23

SO ORDERED.
DATED:

April 15, 2011
/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
Oliver W. Wanger
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

7