Godoy v. Wadsworth et al

Filing 282

PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 1/6/10. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JAMES GODOY, Plaintiff, v. T. WADSWORTH, et al., Defendants. / No. CV 05-2913 NJV FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUREKA DIVISION NOT FOR CITATION

The parties appeared before the Court at the final pretrial conference on December 18, 2009. Trial will begin on January 19, 2010. Each side will be limited to twenty hours. A. 1. MOTIONS IN LIMINE Defendants' Motion In Limine To Exclude Forensic Alcohol Evidence At the pretrial conference, Defendants WITHDREW their motion in limine to exclude forensic alcohol evidence (Doc. No. 236). 2. Defendants' Motion In Limine To Limit Expert Testimony In January 2009, Defendants filed a motion in limine to limit expert testimony to the expert disclosures (Doc. No. 159). Defendants did not re-file this motion for the upcoming January 19,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2010 trial. During the pretrial conference, Defendants also noted that the issue was moot. This motion is therefore deemed WITHDRAWN. 3. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine No. 1 - Timeliness of Plaintiff's Notice of Claim Plaintiff moved the Court in limine to find that Plaintiff timely filed his notice of claim under Cal. Gov't Code §§ 910 and 911.2 (Doc. No. 233). Having reviewed the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments, and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion In Limine No. 1. Whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies is a factual issue and an affirmative defense raised by Defendants (Doc. No. 232). 4. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine No. 3 - Per Se Liability for Excessive Force . As discussed during the pretrial conference, Plaintiff's Motion In Limine No. 3 regarding Defendants' possible per se liability for excessive force (Doc. No. 233) is more properly addressed through jury instructions. Jury instructions will be argued and decided after the evidence has been received. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine No. 3 is WITHDRAWN. 5. Evidence Regarding Alcohol & Plaintiff's Motion In Limine No. 6 - Defendants' Toxicology Report If either party introduces evidence regarding Plaintiff's alleged alcohol consumption, the evidence will be subject to a battle of the experts. As ordered during the pretrial conference, the Court assumes that by December 22, 2009, the parties have informed each other whether they intend to introduce evidence regarding Plaintiff's alleged alcohol consumption, including Defendants' toxicology report. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine No. 6 to exclude Defendants' toxicology report is therefore MOOT. 6. Remaining Motions in Limine. The Court will separately issue an order on the five remaining motions in limine: 1) Defendants' motion in limine to exclude evidence of injuries to other inmates (Doc. No. 237); 2) Plaintiff's Motion In Limine No. 2 that an expert opinion is not necessary for the medical treatment claim; 3) Plaintiff's Motion In Limine No. 4 that an expert opinion is not necessary for the 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

excessive force claim; 4) Plaintiff's Motion In Limine No. 5 to exclude evidence of the conviction from the incident (Doc. No. 233); and 5) Plaintiff's Motion In Limine No. 7 to exclude evidence of the commitment offense (Doc. No. 233).

B.

WITNESSES The parties agreed to present prison staff witnesses who are not defendants by video

conferencing. Defendants' objections to Plaintiff's witness list have been resolved. The Court granted Plaintiff's habeas corpus ad testificandum writs (Doc. Nos. 268 & 281).

C. 1.

EXHIBITS AND EVIDENCE Exhibit Exchange The parties must exchange their trial exhibits, which shall be premarked, tabbed, and in

binders, by close of business January 11, 2010. The parties must deliver the original and two duplicate sets of all exhibits, which shall be premarked, tabbed, and in binders, to chambers (exhibits are not to be filed). For numbering of exhibits, Plaintiff shall use numbers and Defendants shall use letters. 2. Hospital and Medical Records The Court GRANTS the parties' stipulation to allow hospital, ambulance, and other medical records to be admitted without authentication or foundation. 3. Plaintiff's Eye Loss The Court GRANTS the parties' stipulation that Plaintiff's eye was lost when it was struck and therefore, that Plaintiff's eye could not have been saved. 4. Plaintiff's Exhibits - Reports By Prison Officials At the pretrial conference, Plaintiff clarified that he does not plan to introduce into evidence reports by prison officials regarding the December 2003 incident, see Pl.'s Exs. 1 and 5 (Doc. No. 257), but listed these reports on his exhibit list in the event that the reports are needed to refresh 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

witness recollection or impeach a witness. 5. Plaintiff's Exs. 7-27 - Interview Tapes & Transcripts At the pretrial conference, Plaintiff clarified that he will not play the inmate interview tapes or introduce the transcripts of the inmate interview tapes into evidence. See Pl.'s Exs. 7-27 (Doc. No. 257). Plaintiff may, however, play the tapes or introduce the transcripts to refresh witness recollection or impeach a witness. 6. Plaintiff's Ex. 52 - Investigator Report on Johnny Rodriguez At the pretrial conference, Plaintiff WITHDREW Exhibit No. 52, the investigator report on Johnny Rodriguez. Pl.'s Ex. 52 (Doc. No. 257). 7. Plaintiff's Exs. 32-47 - Discovery Responses Discovery responses are generally inadmissible hearsay. Unless Plaintiff establishes an exception to the hearsay rule, Plaintiff may only use discovery responses to refresh witness recollection or impeach a witness. See Pl.'s Exs. 32-47 (Doc. No. 257). 8. Photograph of Weapon Defendants agreed to provide a photograph of the gun used by Defendant prison guards during the December 2003 incident. Defendants have already listed as Exhibit QQ an exemplar of the round used in the Defendant prison guards' gun. See Joint Pretrial Statement, Ex. E at Defs.' Ex. QQ (Doc. No. 234).

D.

MISCELLANEOUS At the pretrial conference, the parties agreed that Plaintiff James Godoy will be permitted to

wear street clothes during trial. Before trial, the parties will reach agreement on the security measures to be taken for Plaintiff during trial (e.g., handcuffs, foot shackle, etc.).

Dated: January 6, 2010

_______________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge 4