Hazeltine v. Hicks et al

Filing 108

ORDER Granting 100 Motion for Reconsideration; ORDER for Plaintiff to Provide Additional Information within Twenty (20) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/22/2018. Filing Deadline: 6/14/2018.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICK HAZELTINE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
FRANCES HICKS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 100.)
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WITHIN
TWENTY (20) DAYS

16
17

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18

Rick Hazeltine (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with

20

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on July 6, 2015, on the following claim: Excessive

21

force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against defendants Ian Young, Benjamin

22

Gamez, Rashaun Casper, Julius Oldan, Porfirio Sanchez Negrete, David Avilia, Rickey Smith,

23

and Charles Ho (collectively “Defendants”). (ECF No. 27.) This case is scheduled for trial on

24

July 10, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Dale A. Drozd.

25

On April 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order

26

denying Plaintiff’s motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses at trial. (ECF No. 100.)

27

On April 24, 2018, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 101.) Plaintiff’s

28

motion for reconsideration is now before the court. Local Rule 230(l).
1

1

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

2

Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that

3

justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent

4

manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist.

5

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation

6

omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his

7

control . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of

8

an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different facts or

9

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior

10

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

11

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

12

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

13

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,

14

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations

15

marks and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

16

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already

17

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134

18

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a

19

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare

20

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and

21

reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

22

A.

23

Plaintiff requests the court to reconsider its April 11, 2018, order denying Plaintiff’s

24

motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses. Plaintiff acknowledges that the court

25

denied his motion due to his failure to provide information required by the court. Now, in the

26

motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff has provided the required information, including the

27

names, location, and I.D. numbers of the prospective witnesses, and Plaintiff’s declaration

28

asserting that the prospective witnesses can testify to relevant information and are willing to
2

1

voluntarily testify at trial. Plaintiff seeks to bring four prospective witnesses, Rodney Short

2

#499-4, John Edgington #809-4, Ramiro G. Madera #544-7, and Stephen Arnold #607-2, and

3

he states that all of the witnesses are actual eyewitnesses to the events at issue in the complaint.

4

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not cited any legal authority for his request, and that

5

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide reconsideration of an order such as the one

6

Plaintiff is seeking. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff was required to file his motion for

7

attendance of incarcerated witnesses pursuant to the requirements in the Amended Scheduling

8

Order, and he failed to do so. Defendants request that if the court is inclined to grant Plaintiff’s

9

motion, then discovery be reopened for the limited purpose of deposing the potential witnesses.

10

B.

11

Defendants’ argument that court rules do not provide for reconsideration of the court’s

12

order is without merit. As discussed above, Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

13

Procedure allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief.

14

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Also, Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that

15

any order that does not terminate the action is subject to revision at any time before the entry of

16

judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In addition, Rule 230(j) of the Local Rules for the Eastern

17

District of California also governs reconsideration of such interlocutory orders. Rule 230(j)

18

provides, in part:

19

Discussion

22

(j) Applications for Reconsideration. Whenever any motion has been
granted or denied in whole or in part, and a subsequent motion for
reconsideration is made upon the same or any alleged different set of facts,
counsel shall present to the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom such subsequent
motion is made an affidavit or brief, as appropriate, setting forth the material
facts and circumstances surrounding each motion for which reconsideration is
sought.

23

Plaintiff states in his motion for reconsideration that he was confused whether to

24

provide information about prospective witnesses in the pretrial statement or the motion for the

25

attendance of incarcerated witnesses. Plaintiff also admits that he simply overlooked the

26

court’s requirement that he inform the court of the witnesses’ addresses due to them being

27

patients in the same hospital as Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff has now provided facts which were

28

not shown upon his prior motion the court shall reconsider its order denying Plaintiff’s motion

20
21

3

1

for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses. However, before deciding which witnesses shall

2

be allowed to testify at trial, the court requires more information from Plaintiff about the

3

specific testimony expected from each prospective witness.

4

Federal Rule of Evidence 403

5

Plaintiff requests the attendance of four witnesses who he claims were all eyewitnesses

6

to the excessive force incident at issue in this case. However, similar testimony by multiple

7

witnesses may be needlessly cumulative. Under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,

8

“evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed . . . by

9

considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

10

Fed. R. Evid. 403. “Rule 403 confers broad discretion on the trial judge.” United States v.

11

Hooton, 662 F.2d 628, 636 (9th Cir. 1981) (“The trial judge’s ruling on excluding evidence on

12

the ground that it would create undue delay, waste time, or needlessly present cumulative

13

evidence should be reversed only if the decision constitutes an abuse of discretion”).

14

The rule does not prohibit the introduction of cumulative evidence; it merely permits a

15

court to exclude otherwise relevant evidence when it has little incremental value, i.e., where it

16

would be “needless[ly] cumulative.” Fed. R. Evid. 403; United States v. Miguel, 87 Fed.

17

Appx. 67, 68 (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2004) (“Rule 403’s cumulative evidence provision does not

18

prohibit the introduction of cumulative evidence; rather, it merely permits courts to exclude

19

cumulative evidence when it has little incremental value”).

20

The probative value of the same or similar testimony of four witnesses who all

21

witnessed the same excessive force incident at the same time may be substantially outweighed

22

by consideration that the testimony would be needlessly cumulative, waste time, and cause

23

undue delay at trial. It does not benefit the factfinder to listen to similar testimony describing

24

the same event four times. Therefore, the court shall require Plaintiff to provide further

25

information about the specific testimony expected by each of the individual prospective

26

witnesses at trial. If the testimony of each witness is expected to be materially the same or very

27

similar, Plaintiff shall inform the court of this fact. The court shall not allow Plaintiff to bring

28

all four witnesses to testify if their testimony would be needlessly cumulative.
4

1

III.

CONCLUSION
The court shall reconsider its order denying Plaintiff’s motion for attendance of

2
3

incarcerated witnesses.

4

before determining which of his prospective incarcerated witnesses shall be allowed to testify

5

at trial.

However, the court requires additional information from Plaintiff

6

Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on April 20, 2015, is GRANTED;

8

2.

Within twenty (20) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall notify

9

the court in writing of the specific testimony expected of each of his four

10

prospective incarcerated witnesses. If the testimony is expected to be materially

11

the same or very similar, Plaintiff shall inform the court of this fact;

12

3.

After the court has determined which of Plaintiff’s prospective incarcerated

13

witnesses shall be allowed to testify at trial, Defendants are not precluded from

14

filing a motion for the court to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of

15

deposing the potential witnesses; and

16

4.

17

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this
case.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 22, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5