Cardoza v. Tann et al

Filing 132

ORDER REGARDING 111 112 113 114 115 117 Motions signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 10/22/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAWRENCE PEPE CARDOZA,
Case No. 1:11-cv-01386-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS AT
DOCKETS 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, and 117

vs.
M. TANN, et al.,
Defendants.

I.

PENDING MOTIONS
Pending before the Court are six motions in limine. Five filed by Defendants P. Paz,

F. Carreon, and R. Pinkham,1 and one by Defendants T. Byers, M. Codd, R. Cummings,
R. Hopkins, T. Mackey, S. Martinez, and J. Oldan.2 The pending motions are summarized
below.
Docket 111.

Seeks to exclude all evidence of diagnosis, treatment, or charges

incurred for medical care not disclosed during discovery or as required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(1).
Docket 112. Seeks to exclude any evidence of dismissed claims that include reference
to either inadequate decontamination or failure to provide medical care.

1

Dockets 111 through 115, inclusive.

2

Docket 117

ORDER RE: MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 111–115, 117
Cardoza v. Tann, 1:11-cv-01386-RRB – 1

Docket 113. Seeks to exclude any evidence supporting an award of punitive damages.
Docket 114. Seeks to exclude all evidence, including documents and witnesses,
neither disclosed nor identified during the course of the litigation.
Docket 115. Requests that a signed verification of discovery responses by Plaintiff
dated July 15, 2015, applies to all written discovery responses provided by Plaintiff.
Docket 117.

Seeks to: (1) bar any testimony by Plaintiff; (2) alternatively, limit

Plaintiff’s testimony to the facts set forth in the declaration attached to the First Amended
Complaint; (3) exclude the testimony of witnesses and any documents not disclosed during
discovery; (4) excluding any evidence, argument, or reference to settlement discussions; (5)
excluding all witnesses from the courtroom during trial; (6) excluding any evidence of
indemnification of Defendants by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation;
and (7) exclude any evidence of Defendants’ net worth.
II.

BACKGROUND
This case was initiated more than four years ago by Cardoza appearing pro se. Since

it has followed a somewhat tortuous route. During that period Cardoza has alternately
appeared pro se and been represented by counsel. Since December 10, 2014, Cardoza has
been represented by his current counsel. This case is currently before the Court on the
Second Amended Complaint filed on Cardoza’s behalf by prior counsel.3

3

Docket 36.

ORDER RE: MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 111–115, 117
Cardoza v. Tann, 1:11-cv-01386-RRB – 2

To facilitate settlement negotiations the Court amended the Scheduling and Planning
Order extending the date for completion of discovery through June 30, 2015, filing of
preliminary statements, witness lists, and discovery motions through July 17, 2015, and
motions in limine through August 3, 2015.4
The record before the Court reflects that Plaintiff has responded to Special
Interrogatories propounded by Defendants Paz, Carreon, and Pinkham. Plaintiff has,
however, failed to appear for his depositions or to respond to interrogatories propounded by
Defendants Byers, Codd, Cummings, Hopkins, Mackey, Martinez, and Oldan.
The Court has previously limited the introduction of evidence with respect to
Defendants Byers, Codd, Cummings, Hopkins, Mackey, Martinez, and Oldan.
Accordingly, as against Defendants T. Byers, M. Codd, R. Cummings,
R. Hopkins, T. Mackey, S. Martinez, and J. Oldan, Plaintiff is hereby limited to
the introduction of: (1) facts except to the extent those facts are specifically
alleged in his First Amended Complaint (Docket 18); (2) any exhibits, except to
the extent that those exhibits are within the possession, custody of control of
the Defendants; and (3) testimony of any witnesses, other than himself and the
Defendants, except to the extent those witnesses may be necessary to
authenticate documents in the possession, custody, or control of the
Defendants.5
III.

DISCUSSION
As relevant to the pending motions the Court may impose as sanctions for the failure

to respond to discovery requests an order: “(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order
or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing

4

Dockets 84, 86.

5

Docket 129 (footnote omitted).

ORDER RE: MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 111–115, 117
Cardoza v. Tann, 1:11-cv-01386-RRB – 3

party claims; (ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated
claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) striking pleadings
in whole or in part; (iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismissing the
action or proceeding in whole or in part; (vi) rendering a default judgment against the
disobedient party; or . . ..”6
A court must consider the following five factors before striking a pleading
or declaring default: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;
(2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the other
party; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and
(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.7
Upon due consideration the Court has determined that weighing the five factors in this
case dictates that, with respect to the failures to respond to discovery requests, it impose a
less drastic sanction than dismissing the case. While the first two factors may tend to favor
dismissal, the last three factors clearly weigh in favor of imposing a less drastic sanction.
Public policy always favors a disposition on the merits rather than on procedural grounds.
Here, the Court may fashion a less drastic sanction, i.e., the limitation on the introduction of
evidence, that minimizes, if not eliminates, any prejudice to the Defendants.
In general relevant evidence is admissible while irrelevant evidence is not.8 “‘Relevant
evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would

6

Fed R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).

7

Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 687 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012)

8

Fed. R. Evid. 402.

ORDER RE: MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 111–115, 117
Cardoza v. Tann, 1:11-cv-01386-RRB – 4

be without the evidence.”9 Thus, unless otherwise admissible, evidence related to the claims
that have been dismissed or otherwise abandoned will be excluded.
Punitive damages may be awarded in a § 1983 case where “the defendant’s conduct
is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless of callous
indifference to the federally protected rights of [the plaintiff].”10 It not only appears that Cardoza
has withdrawn his claim for punitive damages, but the facts to the extent they have been
disclosed during discovery clearly would not support an award of punitive damages in any
event. Consequently, any argument that might infer or imply that Cardoza is entitled to
anything more than his actual damages would be improper. Likewise, inasmuch as it would
only be relevant to the question of punitive damages, any evidence of the Defendants’ net
worth would also be inadmissible.
With respect to the signing of responses to discovery requests, under the facts and
circumstances as evidenced by the record before the court, it is evident that deeming the
signature affixed to the response to one set of discovery requests to all is in the interests of
both judicial efficiency and justice.

9

Fed. R. Evid. 401.

10

Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983); Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 806–07 (9th
Cir. 2005).
ORDER RE: MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 111–115, 117
Cardoza v. Tann, 1:11-cv-01386-RRB – 5

It is the standard practice of this Court to exclude non-party witnesses from the
courtroom except when testifying.11 Evidence of settlement negotiations or indemnification by
CDCR is also inadmissible.12
IV.

ORDER
Applying the foregoing standards to the pending motions:
1.

Motion at Docket 111. GRANTED. All evidence of diagnosis, treatment, or

charges incurred for medical care not disclosed during discovery or as required by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) will be excluded at trial.
2.

Motion at Docket 112. GRANTED. Except to the extent it may otherwise be

relevant to an issue properly before the court, all evidence of dismissed claims that include
reference to either inadequate decontamination or failure to provide medical care will be
excluded at trial.
3.

Motion at Docket 113. GRANTED. Plaintiff may not directly or indirectly refer

to or otherwise imply that the conduct of the Defendants was willful, deliberate, malicious,
egregious, motivated by evil motive or intent, or involved reckless or callous indifference to the
federally protected rights of Plaintiff.
4.

Motion at Docket 114. GRANTED as follows: As against Defendants P. Paz,

F. Carreon, and R. Pinkham, Plaintiff is hereby limited to the introduction of: (1) facts except

11

See Fed. R. Evid. 615.

12

Fed. R. Evid. 408 (settlement negotiations); Larez v. Holcomb, 16 F.3d 1513, 151820 (9th Cir. 1994) (indemnification in a § 1983 action).
ORDER RE: MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 111–115, 117
Cardoza v. Tann, 1:11-cv-01386-RRB – 6

to the extent those facts are specifically alleged in his First Amended Complaint (Docket 18);
(2) any exhibits, except to the extent that those exhibits are within the possession, custody of
control of the Defendants;13 and (3) testimony of any witnesses, other than himself and the
Defendants, except to the extent those witnesses may be necessary to authenticate
documents in the possession, custody, or control of the Defendants.
5.

Motion at Docket 115.

GRANTED. The signed verification of discovery

responses by Plaintiff dated July 15, 2015, applies to all written discovery responses provided
by Plaintiff.
6.

Motion at Docket 117. GRANTED as follows: The Court reaffirms its Order at

Docket 129. In addition the Court will exclude: (1) any evidence, argument, or reference to
settlement discussions except to the extent permitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 408(b);
(2) all witnesses from the courtroom during trial; (3) any evidence of indemnification of
Defendants by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and (4) any
evidence of Defendants’ net worth.
Provided, however, that any evidence otherwise excluded by this Order may be
introduced to the extent that it is otherwise relevant to an issue properly before the court and
not inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13

As defined in the Scheduling and Planning Order. Docket 59.

ORDER RE: MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 111–115, 117
Cardoza v. Tann, 1:11-cv-01386-RRB – 7