Morris et al v. City of Fresno et al

Filing 198

ORDER re Request to Supplement witness list. signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/27/12. (Nazaroff, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ROBERT MORRIS,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
OFFICER CHRISTOPHER LONG,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

1:08-cv-01422-AWI-MJS
ORDER RE: REQUEST TO
SUPPLEMENT WITNESS LIST
(Doc. 193)

16
17

I. INTRODUCTION

18
19

Plaintiff Robert Morris (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) has filed a request to supplement his

20

witness list. For reasons discussed below, the request shall be denied.

21
22

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

23
24

On January 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed his ninth amended complaint, asserting one cause of action

25

against defendant Officer Christopher Long (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) for federal civil

26

rights violations (in particular, excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment right to be free

27

of unreasonable searches and seizures) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 3, 2012, the Court

28

issued a pretrial order containing lists of the witnesses the parties expected to call at trial. On April

1

25, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request to supplement his witness list.

2
3

III. LEGAL STANDARD

4
5

“District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the court of litigation

6

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.’ [Citation.] Where . . . the district court has entered a

7

pretrial order, modifications are allowed ‘only to prevent manifest injustice.’ [Citation.]” Hunt v.

8

County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012). “ ‘The district court should consider four

9

factors in determining whether to modify the parties’ pretrial order: (1) the degree of prejudice or

10

surprise to the defendants if the order is modified; (2) the ability of the defendants to cure any

11

prejudice; (3) the impact of the modification on the orderly and efficient conduct of the case; and (4)

12

any degree of willfulness or bad faith on the part of the party seeking the modification. [Citation.]

13

It is the moving party’s burden to show that a review of these factors warrants a conclusion that

14

manifest injustice would result if the pretrial order is not modified. [Citation.]’ ” Id. (quoting Byrd

15

v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 1998) (abrogated on other ground as recognized in Moreland

16

v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1998)). “Where, upon

17

consideration of factors such as [these], the court determines that refusal to allow a modification

18

might result in injustice while allowance would cause no substantial injury to the opponent and no

19

more than slight inconvenience to the court, a modification should ordinarily be allowed.” U.S. v.

20

First Nat. Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 1981).

21
22

IV. DISCUSSION

23
24

Plaintiff seeks to add four newly discovered witnesses to his witness list. Having reviewed the

25

pleadings of record and all competent and admissible evidence submitted, the Court, applying the

26

foregoing principles, finds Plaintiff has failed to establish manifest injustice would result if

27
28

2

1

modification of the pretrial order to include these witnesses were not allowed. First, permitting

2

Plaintiff to supplement his witness list at this point in time would cause significant prejudice and

3

surprise to Defendant. Plaintiff first requested leave to supplement his list through the filing of this

4

motion on April 25, 2012, less than two weeks before the May 8, 2012 trial date, leaving the defense

5

with insufficient time to familiarize itself with the witnesses’ expected testimony. Second, the only

6

way to cure any prejudice would be reopen discovery to allow Defendant to depose the witnesses.

7

Reopening discovery would in turn require a continuance of trial date, and thus the introduction of

8

new witnesses at this stage of the litigation would have an impact on the orderly and efficient

9

conduct of the case. Although the record does not reveal willfulness or bad faith on the part of

10

Plaintiff in seeking a modification, the foregoing circumstances weigh against modifying the pretrial

11

order.

12
13

V. DISPOSITION

14
15

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to supplement his witness list is DENIED.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated:
0m8i78

April 27, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3