Hood v. Mims et al

Filing 73

PRETRIAL ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 03/05/2018. (Case Management Deadline: 4/27/2018, Filing Deadline: 4/27/2018, Motions filed by 4/13/2018, Jury Trial set for 5/15/2018 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe, Motion Hearing set for 5/7/2018 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe) (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ALBERT LEE HOOD, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, v. ADLENO CUNHA, JR., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:13-cv-00108-BAM (PC) PRETRIAL ORDER Brief re 8th or 14th Amendment: April 27, 2018 Motions in Limine Filing Deadline: April 13, 2018 Opposition to Motions in Limine Filing Deadline: April 27, 2018 Motion in Limine Hearing: May 7, 2018 at noon in Courtroom 8 (BAM) Jury Trial: May 15, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8 (BAM) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Albert Lee Hood is state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Adleno Cunha, Jr., for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. All parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 27, 62.) The parties submitted pretrial statements, and on March 5, 2018, the Court held a telephonic trial confirmation hearing. M. Greg Mullanax appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, and Leslie M. Dillahunty appeared on behalf of Defendant. Having reviewed the parties’ statements and the remainder of the file, and having considered the issues raised at the telephonic trial confirmation 1 1 2 3 4 5 hearing, the Court issues the instant pretrial order. I. Jurisdiction and Venue The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this federal civil rights action. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper because the conduct allegedly occurred in this judicial district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391. II. Trial 6 The parties demand a trial by jury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). 7 Trial is set for May 15, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe 8 in Courtroom 8 (BAM). The parties anticipate the trial will last approximately three to five days. 9 III. Facts 10 A. 11 Plaintiff contends that the following facts are undisputed: 12 1. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff’s Undisputed Facts Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the Fresno County Jail in September 2012 and had been incarcerated there since December 4, 2011. 2. When Plaintiff was incarcerated on December 4, 2011 and continuing, a bullet was lodged in plaintiff’s body. 3. At all relevant times, defendant Cunha was employed as a correctional officer at the Fresno County Jail where Plaintiff was incarcerated. 4. Cunha worked the graveyard shift at the Fresno County Jail on the evening of September 1, 2012. Cunha was assigned to the Security Station. 5. On September 1, 2012, Plaintiff called Cunha over the intercom in his cell to report that 21 the bullet was exiting Plaintiff’s body and Plaintiff requested medical assistance. The jail was on 22 lockdown at the time. 23 6.. Later that evening, Plaintiff again contacted Cunha to report that the bullet exited 24 Plaintiff’s body. 25 7. Plaintiff was seen by staff in the jail infirmary on September 3 and 4, 2012. 26 B. Defendants’ Undisputed Facts 27 Defendant contends that the following facts are undisputed: 28 1. Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the Fresno County Jail in September of 2012 and had 2 1 been incarcerated there since December 4, 2011. 2. 2 3 was lodged in his body. 3. 4 5 4. 10 On the evening of September 1, 2012, Adleno Cunha, Jr., was working the graveyard shift at the Fresno County Jail and was assigned to the security station. 5. 8 9 At all times relevant, Adleno Cunha, Jr., was employed at the Fresno County Jail as a correctional officer where the plaintiff was incarcerated. 6 7 When Plaintiff was booked into the Fresno County Jail on December 4, 2011, a bullet On September 1, 2012, Plaintiff contacted Adleno Cunha, Jr., over the intercom and stated that the bullet that had been lodged in his stomach had come out. At the time, the jail was on lockdown. 11 6. Plaintiff was seen by jail medical staff on September 3 and 4, 2012. 12 7. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was aware of the process of submitting an inmate request 13 form to be seen by medical staff at the jail. 14 C. 15 Plaintiff contends that the following facts are disputed: 16 1. Plaintiff’s Disputed Factual Issues Plaintiff informed the jail nurse upon admission that he had a bullet lodged in his body. 17 Plaintiff requested medical assistance by signing up for sick call several times, but he never received 18 medical assistance. 2. 19 Cunha failed to render any medical assistance or to call for medical assistance. There 20 was no staff available to assist Plaintiff and Cunha told Plaintiff to stay off the intercom button 21 because Cunha was busy. Plaintiff again pushed the intercom button, and Cunha told Plaintiff to “stay 22 off the damn button.” 3. 23 Later on the evening of September 1, 2012 or early morning of September 2, 2012, 24 Plaintiff went to the Security Station window and told Cunha that the bullet had exited Plaintiff’s body 25 and Plaintiff requested medical treatment. Plaintiff actually showed the wound and bullet to Cunha. 26 Cunha responded to Plaintiff by telling Plaintiff to get out of the red area near the window. 27 /// 28 /// 3 1 /// 4. 2 Cunha refused to seek request medical assistance for Plaintiff and never checked on 3 Plaintiff’s condition or investigated Plaintiff’s well-being. Cunha took no effort to examine Plaintiff, 4 contact the infirmary or medical team at the jail or to summon any jail staff to assess the situation and 5 to investigate Plaintiff’s medical condition. 5. 6 Plaintiff was forced to call his attorney for help. Plaintiff’s attorney got involved and 7 sent an investigator from the Federal Defender’s Office to the jail to investigate the incident and to 8 take photos. 6. 9 10 Cunha suffered gaping wound causing pain, lack of sleep, physical pain and anguish and duress. 11 D. 12 1. Whether there was jail floor staff available to assist Plaintiff. 13 2. Whether Adleno Cunha, Jr., checked on the safety of Plaintiff after being advised that the 14 bullet had come out of Plaintiff’s stomach. 3. Whether Adleno Cunha, Jr., advised Plaintiff to inform the jail floor staff of Plaintiff’s 15 16 complaint that the bullet had come out of his stomach. 4. Whether Adleno Cunha, Jr., continued to monitor and observe from the security station and 17 18 it appeared to him that Plaintiff did not really need to be seen by medical staff. 5. Whether during safety checks and head count, Plaintiff expressed to Adleno Cunha, Jr., a 19 20 Defendants’ Disputed Factual Issues need or desire to be seen by medical staff. 21 6. Whether Adleno Cunha, Jr., responded to Plaintiff’s purported requests for medical 22 treatment by telling Plaintiff that he was busy, or responded by telling Plaintiff to “stay off the damn 23 button.” 24 7. Whether Plaintiff had a significant, serious injury as a result of the bullet exiting his body. 25 8. Whether Plaintiff had a serious medical need as a result of the bullet exiting his body. 26 9. Whether Adleno Cunha, Jr., acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need of 27 Plaintiff. 28 /// 4 1 /// 2 E. Disputed Evidentiary Issues1 3 1. Plaintiff’s Disputed Evidentiary Issues 4 Plaintiff has identified no disputed evidentiary issues. 5 2. 6 Defendant intends to file a motion in limine for each of the following: 7 1. Defendant’s Disputed Evidentiary Issues To preclude plaintiff from testifying that, from the time of his booking at the Fresno 8 County Jail on December 4, 2011, up to September 1, 2012, he requested medical assistance by 9 signing up for sick call several times but never received medical assistance. 2. 10 To preclude Vincent Lee, Federal Defender’s Office Investigator, from offering 11 testimony or opinions on the actions, or alleged inactions, of any jail staff, including but not limited to 12 Adlena Cunha, Jr., as it pertains to plaintiff’s allegations of the events of September 1, 2012, through 13 September 4, 2012. 14 3. To preclude plaintiff from testifying as to any medical diagnosis (or lack of diagnosis). 15 4. To preclude plaintiff from raising any issues that have been dismissed by the Court. 16 5. To preclude plaintiff from testifying as to standards in corrections, including Title 15 of 17 the California Code of Regulations, case law or Fresno County Jail policies and procedures. 6. 18 19 or medical staff at the Fresno County Jail. 7. 20 21 To preclude plaintiff from testifying as to policies, practices, and procedures of correctional or medical staff at the Fresno County Jail. 8. 22 23 To preclude plaintiff from testifying as to any hearsay statements made by correctional To preclude plaintiff from testifying as to the content of various Fresno County Jail documents. 24 F. 25 Defendant provides the following special factual information: 26 Plaintiff claims that Adleno Cunha, Jr., failed to summon medical staff after being advised that 27 28 1 at trial. Special Factual Information The parties may file motions in limine, addressed below, and/or object to the introduction of evidence 5 1 a bullet had worked itself out of his stomach. Plaintiff claims that, as a result of this alleged failure to 2 summon medical staff, Plaintiff was forced to suffer a gaping wound which caused him pain, inability 3 to sleep, anguish and duress. 4 Plaintiff sustained multiple gunshot wounds in 2005. At the time of his booking in December 5 of 2011, at least two of the gunshots remained in his body. He has been incarcerated in the Fresno 6 County Jail on approximately six occasions starting in 2006. Over the course of those incarcerations, 7 Plaintiff has been seen by medical staff for complaints of pain caused by the bullets in his body. He 8 was also seen by medical staff for complaints of difficulty sleeping and nightmares related to the 2005 9 shooting. 10 IV. Relief Sought 11 Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages to include damages for mental anguish and emotional 12 distress caused by excessive pain, duress and inability to sleep. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages, 13 and will seek attorney’s fees if the Court allows amendment of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint to 14 add a request for attorney’s fees. 15 16 17 Defendant seeks a defense verdict, as well as costs of suit and attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, should he prevail in this action. V. Points of Law 18 A. 19 Inmates who sue prison officials for injuries suffered while in custody may do so under the 20 Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause or, if not yet convicted, under the 21 Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 22 60 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1979) (holding that, under the Due Process Clause, a detainee may not be punished 23 prior to conviction). Under both clauses, the plaintiff must show that the prison officials acted with 24 “deliberate indifference.” Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. 25 denied sub nom. Los Angeles Cty., Cal. v. Castro, 137 S. Ct. 831, 197 L. Ed. 2d 69 (2017). Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need 26 Prior to Castro, in the Ninth Circuit there was a single “deliberate indifference” test for 27 Plaintiffs, whether under the Eighth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 1068. That is, the 28 prisoner must show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to 6 1 his health or safety. E.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 2 1144, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan v. 3 Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 4 2000); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). A prisoner’s claim does not rise to the 5 level of an Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the 6 ‘minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,’” and (2) “the prison official ‘acted with deliberate 7 indifference in doing so.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett v. 8 Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). 9 Deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment requires a showing that prison officials 10 were aware of a “substantial risk of serious harm” to an inmate’s health or safety and that there was no 11 “reasonable justification for the deprivation, in spite of that risk.” Thomas, 611 F.3d at 1150 (quoting 12 Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844. The circumstances, nature, and duration of the deprivations are critical in 13 determining whether the conditions complained of are grave enough to form the basis of a viable 14 Eighth Amendment claim. Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731. 15 In Castro, the standard for pretrial detainees suing under the Fourteenth Amendment for 16 deliberate indifference was modified, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kingsley v. 17 Hendrickson, ---U.S.--- 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2468, 192 L. Ed. 2d 416 (2015). The Ninth Circuit in Castro 18 held that Kingsley applies to claims of deliberate indifference for pretrial detainees suing under the 19 Fourteenth Amendment. Deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment standard therefore 20 requires a showing of “more than negligence but less than subjective intent—something akin to 21 reckless disregard.” Castro, 833 F.3d at 1071. Further, courts in this district have determined that a 22 plaintiff must prove each of the following elements: 23 (1) The defendant made a request for medical care, or the need for care was glaringly obvious; 24 (2) The plaintiff had a serious medical need; 25 (3) The defendant did not take reasonable steps to obtain or provide medical care, even though 26 a reasonable officer (or reasonable medical staff) in the circumstances would have appreciated the 27 high degree of risk involved—making the likelihood of harm obvious; and 28 (4) By not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff's injuries. Guerra v. 7 1 Sweeny, No. 1:13-cv-01077-AWI-BAM (PC), 2016 WL 5404407 (E.D. Cal Sept. 27, 2016) (citing 2 Castro, 833 F.3d at 1071). With respect to the third element, the defendant’s conduct must be 3 objectively unreasonable under the facts and circumstances. Castro, 833 F.3d at 1071. 4 On or before April 27, 2018, the parties shall each submit a brief regarding the applicable 5 Amendment under the facts of this case. Specifically, in light of the date of the incident at issue in this 6 case, the parties should address whether the Eighth Amendment, pre-Castro standard applies to this 7 case, or whether the more recently developed Fourteenth Amendment standard applies retroactively. If 8 the parties are in agreement as to which standard applies and the elements to be proven, they may file 9 a joint, agreed brief. 10 B. 11 Plaintiff has the burden of proving what, if any, punitive damages should be awarded by a 12 preponderance of the evidence. NINTH CIRCUIT MODEL CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS § 5.5 13 (2008). The jury must find that the defendants’ conduct was “motivated by evil motive or intent, or . . . 14 involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” Smith v. Wade, 15 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S. Ct. 1625 (1986). Acts or omissions which are malicious, wanton, or oppressive 16 support an award of punitive damages. Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807-08 (9th Cir. 2005). Punitive Damages 17 C. 18 Federal Rule of Evidence 609 provides that evidence of a witness’s prior felony conviction 19 Federal Rules of Evidence may be used to impeach that witness’s testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 609. 20 Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts cannot 21 be used to prove the character of the person in order to show conduct in conformity with that character 22 trait. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Such prior acts may be admissible for other purposes only, such as proof of 23 motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. 24 Id. 25 26 27 28 VI. Abandoned Issues None. VII. Witnesses The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including 8 1 rebuttal and impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN 2 THIS SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR 3 UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT 4 “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(10). 5 A. Plaintiff’s Witness List 6 1. Plaintiff Albert Lee Hood 7 2. Defendant Adleno Cunha, Jr. 8 3. Xavier Gladney 9 4. Andre Flanigan 10 5. Vinnie Lee, Investigator, Federal Defender’s Office 11 B. Defendants’ Witness List2 12 1. Correctional Officer Adleno Cunha, Jr., Fresno County Sheriff’s Department 13 2. Correctional Officer Rodrigo Alvarado, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department 14 3. Correctional Officer Paul Haros, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department 15 4. Sgt. Nancy Taylor, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department 16 5. Correctional Officer Michael Wibbels, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department 17 6. Correctional Officer Rudy Marquez, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department 18 7. Correctional Officer Chad Horneck, Fresno County Sheriff’s Department 19 8. R. Luga, D.D.S., Corizon Health 20 9. Rene Figueroa, R.N., Corizon Health 21 10. Cheryl Anderson, R.N., Corizon Health 22 11. Vicki Whittaker, LPT, Corizon Health 23 12. Randy Shahbazian, M.D., Corizon Health 24 VIII. 25 Exhibits The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties expect to offer at 26 27 28 2 Defendants are not required to call all of the witnesses listed. However, as noted above, witnesses the parties plan to call must be available on May 15, 2018, by 9:30 a.m., unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Court will not delay the proceedings because of witness unavailability. 9 1 trial. NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE 2 ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS 3 ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(11). 5 A. Plaintiff’s Exhibits 6 1. Photos of Plaintiff’s injury 7 2. Documents in possession of Vinnie Lee 8 B. Defendant’s Exhibits 9 1. Scene photos and diagrams 10 2. Plaintiff’s medical records subpoenaed from Corizon Health 11 3. Plaintiff’s Correctional Health Inmate Request Forms included in the Corizon Health records 12 4. Fresno County Jail records pertaining to Plaintiff 13 IX. Discovery Documents to be Used at Trial 14 Plaintiff does not expect to offer discovery documents at trial. 15 Defendant may submit the following discovery documents at trial: 16 1. All interrogatories and their responses propounded by any party to this action. 17 2. All requests for production and their responses propounded by any party to this action. 18 3. All depositions, including attached exhibits, taken in this litigation. 19 The parties are warned that the Court generally does not allow the admission into evidence of 20 discovery documents, including responses or transcripts, in their entirety. 21 X. Further Discovery or Motions In their pretrial statements, the parties sought to reopen discovery to depose additional 22 23 witnesses and parties. As discussed during the telephonic hearing, these requests are DENIED. 24 XI. Stipulations None. 25 26 XII. None. 27 28 Amendments/Dismissals /// 10 1 XIII. Settlement Negotiations 2 By separate minute order, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding possible dates 3 for a settlement conference, and to contact courtroom deputy Harriet Herman to secure an available 4 settlement conference date before a Magistrate Judge. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 XIV. Agreed Statement None. XV. Separate Trial of Issues As is the Court’s general practice, the punitive damages phase of this trial, if any, will be bifurcated. XVI. Impartial Experts – Limitation of Experts None. XVII. Attorney’s Fees Plaintiff seeks costs and attorney fees. Any such award shall be limited by the relevant provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 1997e(d). Defendants may seek reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if they prevail at trial. XVIII. Trial Exhibits No special handling. XIX. Trial Protective Order None. XX. A. Miscellaneous Further Trial Preparation 1. Motions in Limine a. Briefing Schedule 24 Any party may file a motion in limine, which is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance 25 testimony or evidence in a particular area. United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009) 26 (quotation marks omitted). In the case of a jury trial, the Court’s ruling gives Plaintiff and Defendants’ 27 counsel advance notice of the scope of certain evidence so that admissibility is settled before 28 attempted use of the evidence before the jury. Id. at 1111-12 (quotation marks omitted). 11 1 Any motion in limine must be served on the other party, and filed with the Court by April 13, 2 2018. Any motion in limine must clearly identify the nature of the evidence that the moving party 3 seeks to prohibit the other side from offering at trial. Any opposition to a motion in limine must be served on the other party, and filed with the 4 5 Court by April 27, 2018. No reply briefs shall be submitted by the parties. A motion in limine hearing will be held, telephonically, on May 7, 2018 at noon in Courtroom 6 7 8 (BAM). 8 9 Whether or not a party files a motion in limine, that party may still object to the introduction of evidence during the trial. 10 2. Other 11 a. The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file a trial brief. If the 12 13 Trial Briefs parties wish to submit a trial brief, they must do so on or before May 7, 2018. 14 b. Verdict Form 15 The parties SHALL reach an agreement on the verdict form for use at trial. The parties shall 16 file and serve the agreed-on verdict form, and identify it as such, by no later than May 7, 2018. If a 17 party seeks additions to the agreed-on verdict form, that party may file and serve by no later than May 18 7, 2018, a proposed verdict form which includes the agreed-on portions and additions that are clearly 19 indicated on that party’s proposed verdict form. The Court will strike and will not accept separately 20 proposed verdict forms upon which the parties do not agree. 21 c. Jury Instructions 22 The parties SHALL also meet and confer, by telephone or other means, to agree upon jury 23 instructions for use at trial. The parties SHALL also file and serve all agreed-upon jury instructions, 24 and identify them as such, by no later than May 7, 2018. The parties shall also provide the Court with 25 a 26 bamorders@caed.uscourts.gov. copy of their proposed jury instructions in Word format via e-mail at: 27 Jury instructions that the parties could not agree on may be filed and served by no later than 28 May 7, 2018. Plaintiff may file and serve no more than five proposed jury instructions and identify 12 1 them as instructions upon which the parties could not agree. Similarly Defendant may file and serve 2 no more than five proposed jury instructions and identify them as instructions upon which the parties 3 could not agree. The Court will not consider additional proposed jury instructions. 4 All jury instructions shall indicate the party submitting the instruction (i.e., joint/agreed-on, 5 plaintiff’s or defendant’s), the number of the proposed instruction in sequence, a brief title for the 6 instruction describing the subject matter, the text of the instruction, and the legal authority supporting 7 the instruction. 8 Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions SHALL be used where the subject of the instruction is 9 covered by a model instruction. Otherwise CACI or BAJI instructions shall be used where the subject 10 of the instruction is covered by CACI or BAJI. All instructions shall be short, concise, understandable, 11 and neutral and accurate statements of the law. Argumentative or formula instructions will not be 12 given and must not be submitted. Quotations from legal authorities without reference to the issues at 13 hand are unacceptable. The parties shall, by italics or underlining, designate any modification of 14 instructions from statutory or case authority, or any pattern instruction, such as the Ninth Circuit 15 Model Jury instructions, and must specifically state the modification made to the original form 16 instruction and the legal authority supporting the modification. 17 By no later than May 7, 2018, the parties may file and serve meaningful objections to disputed 18 jury instructions proposed by another party. All objections shall be in writing, shall set forth the 19 proposed instruction objected to in its entirety, shall specifically set forth the objectionable matter in 20 the proposed instruction, and shall include a citation to legal authority to explain the grounds for the 21 objection and why the instruction is improper. A concise argument concerning the instruction may be 22 included. Where applicable, the objecting party shall submit an alternative proposed instruction 23 covering the subject or issue of law. 24 d. Proposed Voir Dire Proposed voir dire questions, if any, shall be filed on or before May 7, 2018, pursuant to Local 25 26 Rule 162.1. 27 /// 28 /// 13 1 e. Statement of the Case 2 The parties SHALL reach an agreement on a neutral statement of the case to be read to the 3 jury, which briefly describes the case, including the claims and defenses. The parties shall file and 4 serve the neutral statement of the case by no later than May 7, 2018. 5 f. Trial Exhibits 6 No later than May 7, 2018, the parties shall submit all premarked trial exhibits, along with 7 exhibit lists, to Courtroom Deputy Harriet Herman. This includes any demonstrative evidence the 8 parties intend to use. Any exhibits submitted which are not listed in the pretrial statement will not be 9 admitted. 10 Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be pre-marked with the prefix “PX” and numbered sequentially 11 beginning with 100 (e.g., PX-100, PX-101, etc.). Defendants’ exhibits shall be pre-marked with the 12 prefix “DX” and numbered sequentially beginning with 200 (e.g., DX-200, DX-201, etc.). Exhibits 13 which are multiple pages shall be marked with page numbers in addition to the prefix and exhibit 14 number, on each page of the exhibit (e.g., PX-100, page 1 of 2, PX-100, page 2 of 2, etc.). The 15 exhibits shall also be separated by tabs. 16 The parties are required to meet and confer, by telephone or other means, to agree upon 17 and identify their joint exhibits, if any. Joint exhibits shall be pre-marked with the prefix “JT” and 18 numbered sequentially beginning with 1 (e.g., JT-1, JT-2, etc.) 19 automatically into evidence. Joint exhibits are admitted 20 The parties shall submit three sets of the exhibits. The parties must prepare one exhibit binder 21 for use by the court at trial, one for use on the witness stand, and one for use by the courtroom deputy. 22 The binders should have a side tab identifying each exhibit in accordance with the numbering above. 23 Each binder shall have an identification label on the front and spine. 24 XXI. Use of electronic Equipment in Courtroom 25 Any party wishing to receive an overview or tutorial of the Court’s electronic 26 equipment must contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk Harriet Herman at (559) 499-5788 or 27 hherman@caed.uscourts.gov in order to schedule a tutorial session at a time convenient to the Court’s 28 Information Technology staff. The parties need to coordinate so everyone who is interested can attend 14 1 the IT conference, the Court will hold only one conference per case. The conference must be held no 2 later than one (1) week before trial, and the parties shall confer and advise the Courtroom of the date 3 and time that has been agreed upon. The parties will not be provided any training on the day of or 4 during the course of the trial. 5 The electronic equipment and resources available for this trial may differ from the equipment 6 and resources available in other courtrooms and may even differ from the equipment and resources 7 available in this courtroom at another time. It is the responsibility of the parties to familiarize 8 themselves with the equipment and resources available for use in this trial prior to the commencement 9 of trial. If any party is unfamiliar with the equipment and resources available for use in this trial, that 10 party may be ordered to proceed without the aid of such equipment and resources and/or may be 11 sanctioned for any fees, costs or expenses associated with any delay. 12 13 14 15 XXII. Objections to Pretrial Order Written objections to the pretrial order, if any, must be filed on or before March 19, 2018. Such objections shall specify the requested modifications, corrections, additions or deletions. XXI. Compliance with Pretrial Order 16 Strict compliance with this order and its requirements is mandatory. The Court will strictly 17 enforce the requirements of this pretrial order, and counsel and parties are subject to sanctions for 18 failure to fully comply with this order and its requirements. The Court will modify the pretrial order 19 “only to prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). The Court ADMONISHES the parties and 20 counsel to obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules and orders. The 21 failure to do so will subject the parties and/or counsel to sanctions as the Court deems appropriate. 22 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara March 5, 2018 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 15

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?