Villareal v. County of Fresno
ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to Submit Additional Information for Motion for Attendance of Witnesses, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/1/17. 14-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ELAINE K. VILLAREAL,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01410-EPG (PC)
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF
COUNTY OF FRESNO,
(ECF NO. 38)
On July 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for attendance of witnesses (“the Motion”).
(ECF No. 38). On July 26, 2017, Defendant filed objections to the Motion. (ECF No. 39).
Defendant asks that the Court deny the motion, “or, in the alternative, that the Court
require Plaintiff to make a further offer of proof sufficient to meet the standards of detail and
‘sufficient relevancy’ and necessity, and so as to determine, assuming she can meet this standard,
whether the testimony is nonetheless cumulative, warranting limitation in that regard.” (Id. at 7).
The Court will require Plaintiff to submit additional information as to the relevant
information that several of her requested witnesses would testify about. Plaintiff has already
submitted the declarations of Angie Padilla, Shannon Reis, Rachael Vasquez, and Kristen
Thompson. (ECF No. 30, p. 6; ECF No. 33, pgs. 6-7, 9-11, & 18).1 These declarations include
details regarding the event(s) that each potential witness would testify about and will permit the
Plaintiff refers to most of these declarations in the Motion. The Court notes that the declaration of Rachael
Vasquez does not appear to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2).
Court to make a determination as to whether they should testify. (Id.). However, Plaintiff did not
provide declarations from Christy Flores, Sylvia Perez, Monica Macias, or Angelica Gutierrez.
Plaintiff only provided a one paragraph summary regarding the relevant information that each
witness can testify to. These summaries do not contain enough detail for the Court to determine
if these witnesses have personal knowledge of relevant information.
Accordingly, the Court will require Plaintiff to submit additional information regarding
the relevant information that inmates Christy Flores, Sylvia Perez, Monica Macias, and Angelica
Gutierrez can testify to. Relevant details include when the event(s) each witness will testify to
occurred, what happened during the event(s), and whether the witness has information regarding
the Plaintiff’s own efforts to submit a grievance.
information in the form of a declaration from each potential witness.
If possible, Plaintiff should present this
Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date of service of this order to submit
additional information regarding the relevant information that inmates Christy
Flores, Sylvia Perez, Monica Macias, and Angelica Gutierrez can testify to, and
how each has personal knowledge of the relevant information; and
2. Defendant has seven days from the date the additional information is filed in
CM/ECF to file a reply. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 1, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court notes that, given how little time there may be between the ruling on the Motion and the
evidentiary hearing, the Court may issue writs of corpus ad testificandum for potential witnesses and vacate them
after review of the relevant information is received.
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?