Morris et al v. City of Fresno et al

Filing 222

ORDER Re: 215 Request to Supplement Witness List, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/10/2012. (Figueroa, O)

Download PDF
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. 215) 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 19 Defendant Officer Christopher Long (“Defendant”) has filed a request to supplement his witness list 20 in the modified pretrial order and to limit the medical evidence and testimony the parties may present 21 at trial on the issue of damages to that which was in both parties’ possession at the time of the April 22 30, 2012 motions in limine hearing. For reasons discussed below, the request to supplement witness 23 list shall be denied; the request to limit medical evidence shall be denied without prejudice. 24 25 II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 26 27 The Court refers the parties to its prior orders for a complete chronology of the proceedings. On 28 January 11, 2012, plaintiff Robert Morris (“Plaintiff”) filed his ninth amended complaint, asserting 1 one cause of action against Defendant for federal civil rights violations (specifically, excessive force 2 in violation of the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures) 3 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 15, 2012, the Court issued a modified pretrial order 4 containing lists of the witnesses the parties expected to call at trial. On July 3, 2012, Defendant filed 5 a request to supplement his witness list with seven impeachment witnesses. Defendant further 6 requested the Court limit the medical evidence and testimony the parties may present at trial on the 7 issue of damages to that which was in both parties’ possession at the time of the April 30, 2012 8 motions in limine hearing. On July 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendant’s request. 9 10 III. LEGAL STANDARD 11 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(d) provides: “After any conference under this rule, the court 13 should issue an order reciting the action taken. This order controls the course of the action unless 14 the court modifies it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). “District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage 15 discovery and to control the court of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.’ [Citation.] 16 Where . . . the district court has entered a pretrial order, modifications are allowed ‘only to prevent 17 manifest injustice.’ [Citation.]” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012). “ ‘The 18 district court should consider four factors in determining whether to modify the parties’ pretrial 19 order: (1) the degree of prejudice or surprise to the [opposing party] if the order is modified; (2) the 20 ability of the [opposing party] to cure any prejudice; (3) the impact of the modification on the orderly 21 and efficient conduct of the case; and (4) any degree of willfulness or bad faith on the part of the 22 party seeking the modification. [Citation.] It is the moving party’s burden to show that a review of 23 these factors warrants a conclusion that manifest injustice would result if the pretrial order is not 24 modified. [Citation.]’ ” Id. (quoting Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 1998) (abrogated 25 on other ground as recognized in Moreland v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 159 F.3d 365, 26 369 (9th Cir. 1998)). “Where, upon consideration of factors such as [these], the court determines 27 28 2 1 that refusal to allow a modification might result in injustice while allowance would cause no 2 substantial injury to the opponent and no more than slight inconvenience to the court, a modification 3 should ordinarily be allowed.” U.S. v. First Nat. Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 1981). 4 5 IV. DISCUSSION 6 7 A. Defendant’s request to supplement witness list – Defendant first requests he be allowed to add 8 the following individuals to his witness list: Officer Shawn Bishop, Sergeant William Grove, 9 Sergeant Anthony Dewall, Officer Greg Jouroyan, Stephanie Pina, Officer Darren Nelson and 10 Rhonda Smith. Defendant contends these individuals were percipient witnesses to collateral matters 11 involving himself, Heather Ziegenbein and Bryon Stuckey, and that their testimony may be needed 12 to impeach Ziegenbein’s and Stuckey’s testimony regarding such matters. Having reviewed the 13 pleadings of record and all competent and admissible evidence submitted, the Court, applying the 14 foregoing principles, finds Defendant has failed to establish manifest injustice would result if 15 supplementation of the modified pretrial order to include these witnesses were not allowed. 16 In a declaration submitted with the request, defense counsel Brande L. Gustafson testifies 17 omission of these individuals from the earlier pretrial orders was inadvertent: “I became aware after 18 reviewing the 41 witnesses listed for the Plaintiff and the 98 witnesses listed for the Defendant that 19 the seven impeachment witnesses . . . had inadvertently been omitted from the witness[ ] lists. 20 Defense counsel had been operating under the mistaken belief that these seven witnesses had been 21 on the witness list of the Joint Pretrial Statement and were therefore also on the witness list for the 22 Pretrial Orders.” Problematically for Defendant, Plaintiff contends – and Defendant does not dispute 23 – that the identities of the individuals were not disclosed previously in the litigation. Defendant 24 further concedes the names of the individuals were redacted in discovery responses produced to 25 Plaintiff pursuant to court order. Under these circumstances, the Court cannot presume Defendant 26 intended to include these individuals on his witness list, and inclusion of these individuals at this 27 28 3 1 stage of the litigation would cause significant surprise to Plaintiff given Defendant’s nondisclosures. 2 Permitting Defendant to supplement his witness list at this point in time would also cause 3 significant prejudice to Plaintiff. Defendant first requested leave to supplement his witness list 4 through the filing of this request on July 3, 2012. Although this was seven weeks before the August 5 21, 2012 trial date, it was only six days before the July 9, 2012 filing date for further motions in 6 limine, leaving Plaintiff insufficient time to familiarize himself with the witnesses’ expected 7 testimony before moving to preclude it. The only way to remedy such prejudice would be to extend 8 discovery to allow Plaintiff to depose the witnesses and to set a new briefing schedule for motions 9 in limine. These actions would in turn require a continuance of the trial date. Thus, introduction of 10 new witnesses at this stage of the litigation would have an impact on the orderly and efficient 11 conduct of the case. Although the record does not reveal willfulness or bad faith on the part of 12 Defendant in seeking a modification, the foregoing circumstances weigh against modifying the 13 modified pretrial order. Accordingly, Defendant’s request to supplement must be denied.1 14 15 B. Defendant’s request to limit medical evidence – Defendant further requests the Court limit the 16 medical evidence and testimony the parties may present at trial on the issue of damages to that which 17 was in both parties’ possession at the time of the April 30, 2012 motions in limine hearing. Having 18 reviewed the pleadings of record and all competent and admissible evidence submitted, the Court 19 finds this issue to be more appropriately addressed at a motion in limine hearing. Defendant has 20 raised this issue in his motions in limine filed July 9, 2012. Accordingly, Defendant’s request to 21 limit medical evidence at trial shall be denied without prejudice 22 23 24 25 1 27 The Court further notes Defendant does not seek to introduce these witnesses to testify on the emergent matters that led the Court to reopen limited discovery and vacate all previous dates back on April 30, 2012. Rather, Defendant wishes to use these witnesses to rebut the testimony of persons whose identities were disclosed last year by Plaintiff. 28 4 26 1 V. DISPOSITION 2 3 Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s request to supplement his witness list is DENIED. Defendant’s 4 request to limit the medical evidence and testimony the parties may present at trial on the issue of 5 damages to that which was in both parties’ possession at the time of the April 30, 2012 motions in 6 limine hearing is DENIED without prejudice. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: 0m8i78 July 10, 2012 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?