Quinn v. Fresno County Sheriff et al

Filing 128

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO AMEND THE PRETRIAL ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on July 27, 2012. Response due by noon on Monday, July 30, 2012. (Munoz, I)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES LORAN QUINN,
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO AMEND THE
PRETRIAL ORDER

vs.

13
14

Case No. 1:10-CV-01617 LJO BAM

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

(Doc. 124)

Defendants.

15
16

/

17

Plaintiff James Loran Quinn (“Plaintiff”) has filed an ex parte application to amend the pretrial

18

order. Defendants County of Fresno and Probation Officer David Alanis (collectively “Defendants”)

19

oppose any amendment. After careful consideration of the parties’ arguments and the entire record of

20

this case, the Court rules as follows.

21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

On June 27, 2012, the Court issued a pretrial order in this case. On July 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed

23

the instant application to amend the pretrial order. Plaintiff now seeks to amend the pretrial order to

24

include Wade Mangiarelli in his witness list. Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Mangiarelli was initially omitted

25

from Plaintiff’s witness list because (1) Mr. Mangiarelli’s contact information was then unknown, and

26

(2) Mr. Mangiarelli previously indicated to Plaintiff that he did not want to be involved in this lawsuit.

27

However, according to Plaintiff, after a “random” encounter with Plaintiff on July 15, 2012 in Grants

28

Pass, Oregon, Mr. Mangiarelli tentatively agreed to testify in this case.
1

1

Defendants filed an opposition on July 26, 2012. Defendants argue that they will be prejudiced

2

by the addition of Mr. Mangiarelli to Plaintiff’s witness list because Mr. Mangiarelli’s whereabouts were

3

never disclosed to Defendants and therefore Defendants were never able to depose Mr. Mangiarelli. In

4

Defendants’ view, the only way to remedy such prejudice would be to permit Defendants to depose Mr.

5

Mangiarelli at this late hour and to allow Defendants to add new witnesses to their own witness list to

6

counter any testimony from Mr. Mangiarelli. All of this, according to Defendants, would substantially

7

impact the course of trial proceedings.

8

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

9

Once a district court has issued a pretrial order, modifications to the order are allowed “only to

10

prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). To determine manifest injustice, the Ninth Circuit

11

has instructed district courts to consider four factors: (1) the degree of prejudice or surprise to the non-

12

moving party if the order is modified; (2) the ability of the non-moving party to cure any prejudice; (3)

13

the impact of the modification on the orderly and efficient conduct of the case; and (4) any degree of

14

willfulness or bad faith on the part of the party seeking modification. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672

15

F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012). “It is the moving party’s burden to show that a review of these factors

16

warrants a conclusion that manifest injustice would result if the pretrial order is not modified.” Byrd

17

v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 1998).

18

III.

DISCUSSION

19

Defendants cannot be surprised that Mr. Mangiarelli is a potentially relevant witness. Although

20

Plaintiff did not reveal Mr. Mangiarelli’s contact information because it was allegedly unknown at the

21

time, Plaintiff did disclose Mr. Mangiarelli’s identity in Plaintiff’s initial disclosures. (See Doc. 124-1,

22

Decl. of David M. Hollingsworth, ¶¶ 2, 9.) More notably, in the pretrial order, Defendants themselves

23

listed Mr. Mangiarelli as a witness. (Doc. 109 at 20.) Through that, Defendants represented that they

24

were adequately prepared for this witness.

25

Nevertheless, it does appear Defendants would be prejudiced to some degree by allowing Mr.

26

Mangiarelli to testify on the issues Plaintiff now plans to raise. In particular, it appears that Plaintiff

27

plans to have Mr. Mangiarelli testify that he was present during Plaintiff’s arrest and that he witnessed

28

Plaintiff offer the arresting officer proof of his innocense. Defendants, however, apparently were not
2

1

aware of this fact. It appears that Defendants believed Mr. Mangiarelli was relevant only with respect

2

to Plaintiff’s medical care while in jail.

3

This prejudice can be cured without impacting trial, which is scheduled to begin on August 7,

4

2012. The Court will allow Plaintiff to amend the pretrial order to include Mr. Mangiarelli as one of

5

his witnesses if (1) Plaintiff makes Mr. Mangiarelli available for deposition in Fresno, California, and

6

that deposition occurs by no later than Wednesday, August 1, 2012; and (2) Plaintiff agrees to pay the

7

cost of obtaining expedited deposition transcripts. Defendants must also be given an opportunity to file

8

any appropriate ex parte motions following the deposition of Mr. Mangiarelli, including, but not limited

9

to, a motion to modify the pretrial order to include additional witnesses.

10
11
12

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
In accordance with the above, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file and serve notice by no later

than noon on Monday, July 30, 2012, whether he agrees to the conditions set forth above.

13
14
15

Dated: July 27, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3