Plans Inc, et al v. Sacramento City USD
Filing
314
ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 04/19/10. The court orders the parties to exchange all trial exhibits on or before August 2, 2010. Final Pretrial Conference to June 25, 2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2 (FCD) before Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. The parties shall submit their joint final pretrial conference statement on or before June 18, 2010. The Court also CONTINUES the following dates as well: Motions in Limine shall be heard on August 13, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.; All Motions in Limine s hall be filed and served on or before July 23, 2010. All Oppositions shall be filed and served on or before July 30, 2010; Replies due on or before August 6, 2010. Trial briefs shall be filed and served on or before August 24, 2010. The trial shall remain confirmed for August 31, 2010. (Williams, D)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo---PLANS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TWIN RIDGES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, DOES 1-100, Defendants. ----oo0oo---This case comes before the court on plaintiff PLANS, Inc.'s ("plaintiff") motion to augment its trial exhibit list, previously included with the court's final pretrial conference order, and which governed the initial trial in this matter.1 (Docket #229.) On September 28, 2005, the court entered judgment
NO. CIV. S-98-266 FCD EFB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
in favor of defendant Sacramento City Unified School District ("SCUSD"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c), on the ground plaintiff failed to meet its evidentiary burden to establish that anthroposophy is a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause. On November 21, 2007, the Ninth Circuit
reversed this court's judgment, finding that the court erred in excluding certain witnesses' percipient testimony. The Ninth
Circuit held that "because [plaintiff] intended to call [Betty Staley, Crystal Olsen and Robert Anderson] . . . as percipient witnesses, it did not need to comply with the court's deadline for expert disclosures." (Docket #281.) This court had found
that the subject witnesses' proffered testimony was expert opinion, and having failed to timely disclose the testimony, plaintiff was precluded from offering it at trial. The Ninth
Circuit disagreed, and further emphasized that there was no prejudice to SCUSD because plaintiff had disclosed the witnesses as early as January 2001 and the district, itself, had designated the witnesses as experts. (Id.)
Following the remand, this court granted defendant Twin Ridges Elementary School District's motion to dismiss, leaving SCUSD as the sole defendant. (Docket #295 [dismissing Twin
Ridges since as of June 30, 2007, it ceased chartering any Waldorf method public schools].) Following this order, filed
March 4, 2008, there was no activity in the case until May 29, 2009, when plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney, replacing Scott Kendall with Donald Michael Bush. The parties thereafter
requested extensions of time to file a joint status conference statement. The court held a status conference on December 11, 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2009. At that conference, the court set (1) a further final pretrial conference; (2) a trial date for Phase I of the trial (to determine whether anthroposophy is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes); and (3) a hearing date, in advance of trial, for the parties' motions in limine. #306.)2 (Docket
Plaintiff indicated that it may wish to move the court
to reopen discovery to permit plaintiff to modify its proffered witnesses and evidence for trial. The court emphasized that the
Ninth Circuit's remand order only permitted plaintiff to offer at trial the percipient testimony of Staley, Olsen and Anderson; it did not permit plaintiff to reopen discovery or otherwise modify the court's prior final pretrial conference order. The court
directed that if plaintiff sought any such actions, it must file an appropriate motion under Rule 16. By the instant motion, plaintiff does not seek to reopen discovery but rather requests permission to modify its trial exhibit list to delete certain original exhibits and add other documents in support of its position that anthroposophy is a religion. At this juncture, the court will permit plaintiff to
modify its exhibit list, as typically, the court does not render any rulings with respect to proffered exhibits until trial. preparing their joint final pretrial conference statement, parties submit with the statement their expected witnesses and trial exhibits, which the court simply attaches as exhibits to In
Said dates were subsequently modified by Minute Order of April 12, 2010 (Docket #313) due to plaintiff's request to continue the final pretrial conference date. 3
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
its final pretrial conference order.
(See e.g. Docket #229.)
Thereafter, at the time of trial, normally during the hearing on motions in limine, the court rules on any objections to the parties' respective witnesses and trial exhibits. The court will
follow its typical procedures in this case as well. Therefore, both parties may file with their joint pretrial conference statement amended witness and exhibit lists. Each
side may later object to the witnesses or exhibits, including on the ground that the testimony and/or exhibit was not disclosed during the course of discovery, at the time of the hearing on the parties' motions in limine. Where appropriate, the parties shall
file separate motions in limine directed at specific evidence, supported by a memorandum of points and authorities. At that
point, on full briefing, the court can properly consider possible evidentiary objections, including relevancy, hearsay and authentication. Pursuant to the court's Minute Order of April 12, 2010 motions in limine will be heard on August 13, 2010, and trial of Phase I will commence on August 31, 2010. At the December 2009
status conference, the court directed the parties to summarize, in their joint final pretrial conference statement, each witness' expected testimony, including any percipient testimony and/or expert opinion. To facilitate the court's ruling on any
objections to the trial exhibits, the court orders the parties to exchange all trial exhibits on or before August 2, 2010. If a
party moves to exclude any exhibit, it shall submit a copy of the subject exhibit with its motion in limine. Provision of the
parties' final, trial exhibit binders will be as directed in the 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
court's final pretrial conference order, which shall issue following the conference set for June 25, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 19, 2010
FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?