Thomas v. Garcia et al
Filing
211
ORDER granting 207 Renewed Motion to include an exhibit in the trial exhibits signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/19/2013. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JEAN-PIERRE K. THOMAS,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
M. GARCIA, et al.,
Defendants.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:08-cv-0689 – JLT (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED
MOTION TO INCLUDE AN EXHIBIT IN THE
TRIAL EXHIBITS
(Doc. 207)
17
Plaintiff Jean-Pierre K. Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil
18
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion to include
19
the June 4, 2012, medical note from Dr. Shaw as an exhibit at trial. (Doc. 207). The Court previously
20
denied Plaintiff’s request to include this exhibit under the presumption that the document would be
21
included in Plaintiff’s medical file produced by the Defendants. (Doc. 182 at 2 n. 1). However,
22
Plaintiff reports that this document was not included in his medical file provided by the Defendants.
23
(Doc. 207 at 2).
24
On the other hand, on July 17, 2013, the Court ordered the exclusion of the notes of the two
25
ophthalmology visits as contained in Exhibit 11. (Doc. 204 at 14). Specifically, Plaintiff failed to
26
designate a medical expert on the topic and any information regarding the observations of the doctor
27
would be hearsay. Id. Similarly, the proposed exhibit contains the notes of a visit with Dr. Shaw.
28
1
1
(Doc. 207 at 5). Thus, it is not likely the document will be admitted. In any event, the Court
2
GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to add the document as an exhibit.
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 19, 2013
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?