Quinn v. Fresno County Sheriff et al
Filing
156
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTIONS TO AMEND THE PRETRIAL ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on August 3, 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,
12
13
14
Case No. 1:10-cv-01617 LJO BAM
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE MOTIONS TO AMEND THE
PRETRIAL ORDER
vs.
FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,
15
(Docs. 124 & 129)
Defendants.
16
/
17
Pending before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff to amend the pretrial order. First,
18
on July 25, 2012, Plaintiff moved to include Wade Mangiarelli in his trial witness list. In response, the
19
Court indicated that Plaintiff’s request would be granted on condition that Wade Mangiarelli would be
20
made available for deposition by no later than August 1, 2012, and that Plaintiff would pay the cost of
21
obtaining expedited deposition transcripts. These conditions were aimed at curing any prejudice that
22
Defendants might incur as a result of Plaintiff’s late addition. On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff notified the
23
Court that he agreed to the conditions and that the parties had stipulated to holding Wade Mangiarelli’s
24
deposition on August 1, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s July 25, 2012, ex parte motion to
25
amend the pretrial order (Doc. 124) is GRANTED.
26
1
27
28
In its order, the Court instructed Plaintiff to file and serve notice of whether he agreed to the Court’s conditions
by no later than noon on July 30, 2012. (Doc. 128 at 3.) Plaintiff, however, did not notify the Court of his decision until
one day past the deadline, on July 31, 2012. This is the second time the Court has had to admonish Plaintiff’s counsel for
failing to abide by Court deadlines. (See Doc. 103 at 6.) Plaintiff’s counsel is placed on notice that any further untimeliness
on his part will be grounds for sanctions.
1
1
Second, on July 27, 2012, Plaintiff moved to include the deposition testimony of Dr. Khoi Lee
2
and Dr. Lorie DeCarvalho in his list of discovery documents that may be used at trial. On July 31, 2012,
3
Defendants responded that they do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion so long as their counter-designations
4
to the deposition testimony are accepted one day late.2 Good cause appearing and seeing no prejudice
5
to either party, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s July 27, 2012, ex parte motion to amend the pretrial order
6
(Doc. 129), and accepts Defendants’ counter-designations.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated:
b9ed48
August 3, 2012
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The deadline for counter-designations was set for July 30, 2012.
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?