Tater-Alexander v. Amerjan et al

Filing 345

ORDER RE: Plaintiff's request to file a limited reply to defendant's objections to the Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact 342 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 8/2/2011. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MICHAEL TATER-ALEXANDER

11
12

1:08-cv-00372 OWW SMS

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
TO FILE A LIMITED REPLY TO
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED FINDINGS
OF FACT (DOC. 342)

et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff requests leave to file a limited Reply to

18

Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact

19

regarding the issue of the video that was shown to the jury

20

through witness Bianco.

21

purposes under the exception to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

22
23

The video was admitted for impeachment

26 for evidence offered “solely for impeachment.”

In its

objections to Plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Defendant

24
25
26

stated:

“[The video] counters the credibility of plaintiff’s

testimony on the first element plaintiff must prove to prevail,

27

that he was disabled under the ADA.”

Plaintiff suggests that

28

this language amounts to an admission that the video was “not
1

1

offered, nor intended to be offered, solely for impeachment

2

purposes and should have been excluded from the trial for a

3

violation of FRCP 26 – a failure to produce prior to trial....”

4

Doc. 342 at 2.

5
6
7

This is nonsensical for two reasons.

First, language in

Defendant’s objections does not reference any purpose other than

8

impeachment as to the evidence offered in support of a particular

9

element of Plaintiff’s claim.

10

for the purposes of impeachment only, limiting its use by the

11

advisory jury to that purpose only.

12
13
14

admonished.
issue.

Second, the evidence was admitted

The jury was appropriately

There is no basis for additional briefing on this

The request to file a limited reply is DENIED.

15
16
17

SO ORDERED
Dated: August 2, 2011
/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
United States District Judge.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2