Aguilar v. County of Fresno, California et al

Filing 198

ORDER on Defendants' 184 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order and to Reconsider Evidentiary Ruling Limiting the Testimony of CHP Officer Martorana, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 11/10/2010. (Gaumnitz, R)

Download PDF
Aguilar v. County of Fresno, California et al Doc. 198 1 2 3 4 5 James D. Weakley, Esq. Valerie J. Velasco, Esq. Bar No. 082853 Bar No. 267141 WEAKLEY, ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP 1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176 Fresno, California 93710 Telephone: (559) 221-5256 Facsimile: (559) 221-5262 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF FRESNO and ERNEST SERRANO 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ALICE ROSAS AGUILAR, as successor in interest to Sergio Rosas Aguilar; ALICE ROSAS AGUILAR, an individual, ) CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01202-OWW-GSA ) ) ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ) MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER Plaintiffs, ) AND TO RECONSIDER EVIDENTIARY ) RULING LIMITING THE TESTIMONY v. ) OF CHP OFFICER MARTORANA ) COUNTY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, ) a political subdivision of the State of ) California; ERNEST SERRANO, an ) individual, ) ) Complaint Filed: August 15, 2008 Defendants. ) Trial Date: December 7, 2010 ____________________________________ ) The hearing on this matter was heard before The Honorable Oliver W. Wanger in Courtroom 3 of this Court with Brian Claypool appearing on behalf of Plaintiff, ALICE ROSAS AGUILAR and Valerie Velasco and James Weakley appearing on behalf of Defendants, COUNTY OF FRESNO and ERNEST SERRANO. Argument was heard by both parties and the Court finds as follows: The Court finds that the appropriate standard to modify the Final Pretrial Order is manifest injustice as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16(e) and Defendants did not meet that standard so as to allow for Dr. Kris Mohandie to supplement his previous Rule 26 disclosure to include testimony regarding the physical effects of being involved in a traumatic or high stress situation. Defendants' motion to allow Dr. Mohandie to supplement his Rule 26 report and trial testimony is DENIED. ____________________________ D e fe n d a n ts 'O r d e r on Motion to M o d ify Scheduling Order and Reconsider Ruling UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court finds that the Defendants did not demonstrate manifest injustice to allow for the designation of an expert on bullet trajectory analysis and that motion is DENIED. However, the Court finds that any argument of counsel regarding the significance of the location of shell casings at the scene is inappropriate as it lacks foundation and will not be permitted. The Court finds that the raw data that was gathered by Hector Tello at the scene was available to the parties even though it was not utilized at the trial of this matter. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to permit Hector Tello's diagram of the scene and his testimony regarding what he observed and how he took his measurements, however he is not permitted to provide any expert testimony amounting to scene reconstruction. The Court finds that manifest injustice was not established so as to allow the expert testimony of Ronnie Rackley and Defendants' motion to allow his designation and testimony at trial is DENIED. The Court finds that Plaintiff's drug use is extremely prejudicial but that it is relevant to the issue of Plaintiff's damages. As such the testimony of Officer Martorana is admissible. However, the limitations imposed were a result of balancing the prejudicial effect of evidence of Plaintiff's drug use against the probative value of that evidence. The Court will not expand upon the limitations imposed at trial, and Defendants' motion for reconsideration of this ruling is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 10, 2010 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER United States District Judge ____________________________ D e fe n d a n ts 'O r d e r on Motion to M o d ify Scheduling Order and Reconsider Ruling 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?