Miller v. Schmitz et al

Filing 97

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED WITNESS LIST (Doc. 93) signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on November 13, 2013. (Munoz, I)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

ISAAC MILLER,

15

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
WITNESS LIST

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:12-cv-0137 LJO SAB

v.
HANFORD POLICE OFFICER STEVE
SCHMITZ, et al.,

(Doc. 93)

16
Defendants.
17
18
19

/
Defendants Officer Steve Schmitz and the City of Hanford (collectively “Defendants”) object

20

to Plaintiff Isaac Miller’s (“Plaintiff’s”) amended witness list, which was filed on November 10, 2013.

21

Defendants maintain that Plaintiff’s amended witness list is untimely and therefore should be stricken.

22

For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objection.

23

The relevant background on this issue is as follows. In its pretrial order, the Court ordered the

24

parties to file and serve their final witness lists by no later than November 8, 2013. (Doc. 64 at 16.)

25

Plaintiff filed and served a witness list on November 8, 2013. (Doc. 79.) However, two days later, on

26

November 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed and served an amended witness list, the list now in dispute. (Doc.

27

91.) The difference between Plaintiff’s first witness list and Plaintiff’s amended witness list is that in

28

the latter Plaintiff added one witness: Mike Signorile. (Id. at ¶ 27.)
1

The Court will, in the interest of justice, allow Plaintiff to proceed on his amended witness list.

1
2

First, Mike Signorile is a significant witness to Plaintiff’s case. Indeed, the Court denied Defendants

3

summary judgment based primarily on Mike Signorile’s deposition testimony. Second, it appears that

4

Plaintiff’s omission of Mike Signorile was a simple mistake. Plaintiff promptly corrected his mistake,

5

and there is no indication that Plaintiff acted in bad faith. Third, and most importantly, Defendants

6

will not be prejudiced. Defendants were fully aware that Mike Signorile would be a part of Plaintiff’s

7

case and are fully prepared for his testimony. Given these circumstances, the Court declines to strike

8

Plaintiff’s amended witness list.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

November 13, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

23
24
25
26
27
28
2