Mayo v. Recycle to Conserve

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 10/18/11 DENYING 32 Objections to Final Pretrial Order filed by Edison Mayo. (Meuleman, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 EDISON MAYO, 13 14 15 NO. CIV. 2:10-629 WBS EFB Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO PRETRIAL ORDER v. RECYCLE TO CONSERVE, INC., 16 Defendant. / 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 On September 6, 2011, the court held the Final Pretrial 20 Conference in this case and issued the Final Pretrial Order that 21 same day. 22 Conference, the parties were required to submit Pretrial 23 Statements that included “[a] list (names and addresses) of all 24 prospective witnesses, whether offered in person or by deposition 25 or interrogatory, designating those who are expert witnesses.” 26 E.D. Local Rule 281(b)(10); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(G). 27 Local Rule 281(b)(10) specially warns, “Only witnesses so listed 28 will be permitted to testify at the trial, except as may be At least fourteen days prior to the Final Pretrial 1 1 2 otherwise provided in the pretrial order.” The Final Pretrial Order in this case provided for the 3 parties to call all of the witnesses listed in their pretrial 4 statements and stated: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 (C) No other witnesses will be permitted to testify at trial unless: (1) all parties stipulate that the witness may testify; (2) the party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time of the Pretrial Conference; or (3) the witness was discovered after the Pretrial Conference. (D) Testimony of a witness not designated in this Order, which is offered under paragraph VII(C)(3), above, upon the grounds that the witness was discovered after the Pretrial Conference, will not be permitted unless: (1) the testimony of the witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the Pretrial Conference; (2) the court and opposing counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the testimony; and (3) counsel proffered the witness for deposition if time permitted or provided opposing counsel a reasonable summary of the testimony if time did not permit a deposition. (Docket No. 31 at 4.) On September 14, 2011, plaintiff Edison Mayo filed an 19 ex parte objection to the Final Pretrial Order, seeking to add 20 two witnesses to his list of witnesses for trial. 21 David Simpson and La Yang, are employees of defendant and, 22 according to plaintiff, “would testify regarding racism directed 23 at Mr. Mayo in the workplace, racism in the workplace generally, 24 and respond to the new allegation by the employer that Mr. Mayo 25 may have stolen fuel or tools as a basis for his termination.” 26 (Docket No. 32 at 1-2.) 27 28 The witnesses, Addition of these witnesses does not come within any of the exceptions provided in the Final Pretrial Order. 2 1 Specifically, defendant has not stipulated that the witnesses may 2 testify, and because plaintiff indicates that the witnesses were 3 disclosed in his Rule 26 initial disclosures, the court cannot 4 conclude that they were discovered after the Final Pretrial 5 Conference or that their testimony will be offered for the 6 purpose of “rebutting evidence which could not have been 7 reasonably anticipated at the time of the Pretrial Conference.” 8 9 The only explanation plaintiff offers for having omitted these witnesses from his Pretrial Statement is that he 10 “was attempting to determine the address of the individuals” and 11 “was unable to locate their address.” 12 With the exception of his expert witness, however, plaintiff did 13 not include an address for any of the other five lay witnesses he 14 listed in his Pretrial Statement and even identified one witness 15 simply as “Ralph.” 16 to now suggest that plaintiff intentionally omitted Simpson and 17 Yang from his Pretrial Statement because he did not have their 18 addresses. (Docket No. 32 at 2.) (See Docket No. 28 at 3.) It is disingenuous 19 Because the Final Pretrial Conference is a significant 20 juncture in the life of a case and can be regarded as tantamount 21 to the first day of trial, “[t]he court may modify the order 22 issued after a final pretrial conference only to prevent manifest 23 injustice.” 24 Inc., 535 F.2d 492, 495 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[A]n amendment of a 25 pre-trial order should be permitted where no substantial injury 26 will be occasioned to the opposing party, the refusal to allow 27 the amendment might result in injustice to the movant, and the 28 inconvenience to the court is slight.” (quoting Sherman v. United Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); see also Angle v. Sky Chef, 3 1 States, 462 F.2d 577, 579 (5th Cir. 1972))) (internal quotation 2 marks omitted). 3 Although in an unpublished decision, the reasoning of 4 WLD Investors, Inc., v. Xecom Corp., 35 Fed. App’x 609 (9th Cir. 5 2002), is instructive in this case. 6 defendants failed to submit witness and exhibit lists in their 7 pretrial statement and the district court ultimately denied his 8 request to amend the final pretrial order. 9 explained, “Notwithstanding the adverse consequences of the In WLD Investors, Inc., the The Ninth Circuit 10 pretrial order on [the defendant’s] ability to mount a defense, 11 adverse consequences for defendants--arising from their own 12 extreme lack of diligence–-are hardly the ‘manifest injustice’ 13 Rule 16(e) was designed to allow district courts to prevent.” 14 Id. at 612. 15 The Ninth Circuit further explained that “a represented 16 party[] certainly can be charged with knowledge of local rules 17 requiring the submission of pretrial materials,” id. (citing 18 Ringgold Corp. v. Worrall, 880 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 19 1989)), and, “[b]ecause the client is presumed to have 20 voluntarily chosen the lawyer as his representative and agent, he 21 ordinarily cannot later avoid accountability for negligent acts 22 or omissions of his counsel,” id. (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. 23 v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 396 (1993); Link v. 24 Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962)). Here, while testimony from plaintiff’s former co- 25 26 workers may strengthen his case, their exclusion from the trial 27 does not rise to the level of “manifest injustice” Rule 16 28 requires. Either plaintiff believed their testimony was 4 1 unnecessary at the time he prepared his pretrial statement or the 2 witnesses were so insignificant to him at the time that he 3 neglected to include them. 4 to call them at trial does not result in manifest injustice under 5 either circumstance. 6 plaintiff’s objection to the Final Pretrial Order. 7 Denying plaintiff’s untimely1 request Accordingly, the court will deny IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s ex parte 8 objection to the Final Pretrial Order (Docket No. 32) be, and the 9 same hereby is, DENIED. 10 DATED: October 18, 2011 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff’s objection to the Final Pretrial Order was untimely. The court signed the Final Pretrial Order on September 6, 2011, and the Final Pretrial Order stated, “[a]ny objections or suggested modifications to this Pretrial Order shall be filed and served within five days from the signed date of this Order.” This required any objections to the Final Pretrial Order to be filed on or before September 12, 2011, which was the Monday following the expiration of five-day deadline that fell on Sunday, September 11, 2011. Plaintiff did not file his objection until September 14, 2011. Nonetheless, even if plaintiff’s objection to the Final Pretrial Order was timely, the court would still deny his request for the reasons explained herein. 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?