Carr v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 222

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/13/13 ORDERING that 212 and 213 motions to amend the pretrial order are GRANTED; Clerk of the Court is directed to attach to this order the following pages from plaintiffs April 29, 2013 filing (dkt. no. 220 ), pages 2, 3, 5 & 6; and the documents appended to this order identify the exhibits and discovery documents plaintiff seeks to admit at trial. (Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ARTHUR CARR, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:09-cv-0826 GEB KJN P vs. H. HER, et al., 14 ORDER AND SUPPLEMENTAL Defendants. 15 PRETRIAL ORDER IDENTIFYING / PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHIBITS 16 On November 20, 2012, the undersigned issued the pretrial order. On February 17 25, 2013, plaintiff filed an untimely motion for modification of the pretrial order, and a motion 18 for reconsideration of the pretrial order, claiming that he inadvertently omitted exhibits from the 19 exhibit list contained in the pretrial order. Defendants did not oppose the motions. 20 21 At the January 14, 2013 trial confirmation hearing, jury trial was continued to July 9, 2013. This case is presently set for settlement conference on June 13, 2013. 22 By order filed March 26, 2013, plaintiff was directed to submit a complete exhibit 23 list within thirty days, and defendants were granted seven days thereafter to file an opposition, if 24 any, to plaintiff’s motion to amend his exhibit list. On April 29, 2013, plaintiff filed his exhibit 25 list; seven days have now passed, and defendants have not filed an opposition. 26 //// 1 1 A pretrial order “may be modified only for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). 2 The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the 3 diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 4 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory committee's notes (1983 5 amendment)). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule 16 primarily focuses upon the 6 diligence of the party requesting the amendment. Id. “Although the existence or degree of 7 prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a 8 motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification.” Id. 9 It appears that shortly after the trial confirmation hearing, plaintiff realized he had 10 inadvertently omitted key exhibits during the exhibit exchange, and that other documents were 11 not included in the court’s pretrial order. Plaintiff avers that copies of the newly submitted 12 exhibits have been provided to counsel for defendants. 13 Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion to amend the pretrial order is granted. 14 Plaintiff’s exhibit list and discovery documents identified in the November 20, 2012 pretrial 15 order (dkt. no. 194 at 6-8 & 9-11) are amended to reflect the list of trial exhibits submitted by 16 plaintiff on April 29, 2013 (dkt. no. 220). The Clerk of the Court is directed to attach to this 17 order the following pages from plaintiff’s April 29, 2013 filing (dkt. no. 220): pages 2, 3, 5 & 6. 18 These pages identify the exhibits and discovery documents plaintiff seeks to admit at trial. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s motions to amend the pretrial order (dkt. nos. 212 & 213) are 21 granted; 22 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to attach to this order the following pages 23 from plaintiff’s April 29, 2013 filing (dkt. no. 220), pages 2, 3, 5 & 6; and 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 2 1 3. The documents appended to this order identify the exhibits and discovery 2 documents plaintiff seeks to admit at trial. 3 DATED: May 13, 2013 4 5 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 carr0826.aex

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?