Lamon v. Adams et al

Filing 305

ORDER Sustaining Defendants' Objection and STRIKING Footnote Seven of the Pretrial Order signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/31/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.
DERRAL ADAMS, et al.,

Case No. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-JLT PC
ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’
OBJECTION and STRIKING FOOTNOTE
SEVEN OF THE PRETRIAL ORDER
(Doc. 304)

Defendants.

14
15

This action is scheduled for trial on March 8, 2016. On December 15, 2015, the Pretrial

16

Order issued. (Doc. 302.) Defendants timely filed objections (Doc. 304) to footnote seven of the

17

Pretrial Order that required all witnesses Defendants plan to call to be present and available at

18

9:30 a.m. on the first day of trial for Plaintiff to call for direct examination.

19

Defendants object to this requirement on the basis that Plaintiff received instruction on the

20

requirements to secure attendance at trial of witnesses -- both voluntary and involuntary -- he

21

desired to call in the presentation of his case. Despite ample opportunity, Plaintiff did not request

22

subpoena’s or submit witness fees for any unincarcerated persons he desired to call as witnesses

23

and his motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses was denied. Defendants argue that they

24

named a number of non-party witnesses out of an abundance of caution in compliance with Local

25

Rule 281 and that it would be unfair, prejudicial, and place an undue burden on the witnesses,

26

Defendants, and the CDCR to require Defendants to secure their appearance at trial for Plaintiff’s

27

use. Further, Defendants argue that allowing Plaintiff to examine their retained expert in his case

28

1

1

in chief will likely confuse the jury as Defendants’ evidence/testimony, upon which the expert’s

2

opinions are based, will not yet have been presented.

3

Defendants’ position is valid.

4

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s objection, filed on December

5

28, 2015, is SUSTAINED and footnote number 7 is STRICKEN from the Pretrial Order.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

December 31, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2