Caruso v. Johnson et al

Filing 242

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE PRE-TRIAL ORDER AND ORDER CORRECTING PRE-TRIAL ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/05/2020. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff's objections (Doc. No. 241) are SUST AINED. The pre-trial order (Doc. No. 239) is CORRECTED NUNC PRO TUNC as follows: At Page 25 Line 28, the line shall now read as follows: "70. Report of Neurosurgery by Dr. Frank Yoo dated 9/12/17, and Discharge Summary". At Page 29 Line 14, the line shall now read as follows: "work performed at $228 per hour)." (Gonzales, V)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

GINA CARUSO,

6

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-0780 AWI EPG
Plaintiff

7

v.

8

OFFICER G. SOLORIO, et al.,

9

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE PRE-TRIAL
ORDER AND ORDER CORRECTING
PRE-TRIAL ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC

Defendants
(Doc. No. 241)

10
11

On April 20, 2020, the Court issued a pre-trial order in this matter. See Doc. No. 241. The

12 pre-trial order contains a deadline in which to file objections. See id. On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff
13 filed timely objections in which she objects to two aspects of the pre-trial. See id.
14

First, Plaintiff objects to the description of her Exhibit No. 70. See id. The pre-trial order

15 identifies the exhibit as the “Report of Neurosurgery by Dr. Frank Yoo, dated 9/12/17.” Plaintiff
16 explains that she inadvertently failed to also identify the document attached to the neurosurgery
17 report and requests that Exhibit 70 be identified as “Report of Neurosurgery by Dr. Frank Yoo,
18 dated 9/12/17, and Discharge Summary.” This is not really an objection, it is merely an
19 identification of an error made during the pre-trial statement process. Nevertheless, as Plaintiff
20 represents that the Discharge Summary is essentially part of Dr. Yoo’s report, the Court will grant
21 Plaintiff relief and identify Exhibit 70 as requested.1
Second, Plaintiff objects that Section 20 of the pre-trial order (entitled “Attorney’s Fees”)

22

23 has an incorrect hourly rate listed. See id. The pre-trial order identifies $152 as the hourly rate,
24 but the pre-trial statement noted an hourly rate of $228. See id. Upon review, Plaintiff is correct.
25 The hourly rate identified in the joint pre-trial statement is $228. Therefore, the Court will order
26 Section 20 to be corrected to reflect that the hourly rate identified is $228, not $152.
27
28

1

The Court reminds the parties that the mere fact that the pre-trial order now identifies Exhibit 70 as including a
Discharge Summary does not make either Exhibit 70 as a whole or the Discharge Summary in particular admissible
per se.

1

ORDER

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3 1.

Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. 241) are SUSTAINED;

4 2.

The pre-trial order (Doc. No. 239) is CORRECTED NUNC PRO TUNC as follows:

5

a.

Neurosurgery by Dr. Frank Yoo dated 9/12/17, and Discharge Summary”; and

6
7
8

At Page 25 Line 28, the line shall now read as follows: “70. Report of

b.

At Page 29 Line 14, the line shall now read as follows: “work performed at $228
per hour).”

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: May 5, 2020

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2