Hill v. Clark et al

Filing 106

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS 101 MOTION TO AMEND THE PRETRIAL ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/5/2016. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHNATHAN HILL,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

15

J. CLARK and A. RIVAS,

16
Defendants.
17
18
19

I.

20
21
22
23

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-386-EPG

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO AMEND THE PRETRIAL ORDER

(Doc. 101)

Introduction
On March 9, 2015, Defendants Clark and Rivas, filed a Motion to Amend the Pretrial Order

(Doc. 57) requesting that an additional witness be permitted to testify at trial. (Doc. 101). Plaintiff has
not filed an opposition. Upon a review of the pleading, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
II.

Discussion

24
This case is set for trial on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. Defendants have filed a
25
motion to amend the pretrial order so that an additional witness, Lieutenant Cruz, can be permitted to
26
testify at trial. Defendants contend that Lieutenant Cruz was involved in the adjudication of
27
28

Plaintiff’s inmate appeal related to his claims of excessive use of force. They assert that a complete
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

copy of the appeal and the related confidential staff inquiry was given to Plaintiff during discovery,
and these documents were also identified in their pretrial statement. Plaintiff also received copies as
part of Defendants’ trial exhibits on February 16, 2016. Defendants contend that the omission of this
witnesses in their pretrial statement was inadvertent, and that there is no prejudice to Plaintiff since he
is in possession of the documents related to Lieutentant Cruz’s testimony.
Generally, the Pretrial Order controls and it may not be modified absent a showing of necessity
to prevent manifest injustice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d), (e); Local Rule 283(c); Hunt v. County of Orange,

8
672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012). The following factors are considered in determining whether to
9
modify the Amended Pretrial Order: (1) degree of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party; (2) the
10
ability of the opposing party to cure any prejudice; (3) the impact of the modification on the orderly
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20

and efficient conduct of the case; and (4) any degree of willfulness or bad faith on the part of the party
requesting the amendment. Hunt, 672 F.3d at 616 (quotation marks and citation omitted); Galdamez v.
Potter, 415 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005).
Here, all of the parties are in possession of the documents that relate to Lieutenant Cruz’s
testimony, therefore, there will be no prejudice or surprise in the litigation of the case. Moreover,
Lieutenant Cruz’s testimony is relevant to the issues that will be raised at trial and the omission
appears to be inadvertent. Finally, Plaintiff has not opposed the request. Accordingly, in order to
prevent manifest injustice, the Defendants’ Motion to Amend the Pretrial Order to include Lieutenant
Cruz as a witness (Doc. 101) is GRANTED.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated:

April 5, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2