Cleveland v. Curry et al

Filing 192

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas on October 31, 2013. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

IVAN VERNORD CLEVELAND, et al.,

Case No. 07-cv-02809-NJV

Plaintiffs,
9
v.

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

10
11

BEN CURRY, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

The parties appeared before the court at the final pretrial conference on October 15, 2013

15

and for a status conference on October 29, 2013. Below is a summary of the rulings the court

16

issued from the bench. Trial will begin November 4, 2013. Each side will be limited to 12 hours.

17
18

A. MOTIONS IN LIMINE.
1.

Plaintiffs’ motion for extended voir dire. See Doc. No. 161. The court ordered the

19

parties to submit any proposed voir dire questions no later than October 25, 2013.

20

Neither party timely submitted additional questions; the court will not incorporate into

21

its voir dire the proposed questions Plaintiffs submitted belatedly on October 29, 2013.

22

The court granted each side 20 minutes to voir dire potential jurors after the court has

23

conducted its voir dire; Plaintiffs may pose their proposed voir dire questions to

24

potential jurors during this time. Each side has three peremptory challenges.

25

2. Plaintiffs’ motion regarding Defendants’ witnesses. See Doc. No. 161. Defendants

26

withdrew their unnamed witness, and the court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’

27

motion to add the unnamed witness to their witness list. See Doc. No. 187. The court

28

granted Plaintiffs’ motion to add Correctional Lieutenant Armando Padilla to their

1

witness list, but denied their motion to reopen discovery as to Padilla and denied their

2

motion to order Defendants to unredact related documents. Id.

3

3. Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude evidence of their crimes, sentences, etc., beyond the fact

4

that they are incarcerated. See Doc. No. 161. The court ruled that the crimes were

5

relevant for impeachment purposes and ordered Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with a

6

list of each crime they wish to use for impeachment purposes, and will rule on any

7

objections by Plaintiffs during trial.

8

4. Defendants’ motion to exclude claims by inmates who are not plaintiffs in this case.

9

See Doc. No. 156. This motion relates to Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 3-5. The court granted
the motion, except that this type of evidence may be used for impeachment purposes or

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

if it otherwise becomes relevant at trial. If Plaintiffs’ counsel contends the information

12

becomes relevant at trial or wishes to use it for impeachment purposes, he should

13

request a sidebar.

14

5. Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of May 2010 search of Cleveland’s cell and

15

Trask’s retaliation claim. See Doc. No. 162. The court granted the motion as to

16

Trask’s retaliation claim and took the motion as to Cleveland under submission to be

17

reconsidered at trial.

18
19

B. WITNESSES
Plaintiffs’ counsel clarified during the October 29, 2013 status conference that he intended

20

to identify as witnesses any witnesses named by Defendants for trial or in discovery. He

21

submitted an amended witness list to the court and Defense counsel on October 30, 2013, which in

22

addition to the witnesses Plaintiffs disclosed in their pretrial conference statement, listed Padilla

23

and Sergeant Randall. The court will rule on any objection to Randall’s testimony at trial.

24
25

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

26

binders, by the close of business on November 1, 2013. The court has received the parties’

27

exhibits.

28

The parties have agreed to stipulated facts, which the court shall read into evidence. See
2

1
2

Doc. No. 153 at 1-2.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 3-5 pertain to inmates who are not Plaintiffs in this action. The court

3

has granted Defendants’ motion to exclude this evidence from Plaintiffs’ case in chief, but the

4

evidence nonetheless may become relevant during the trial, including for impeachment purposes.

5
6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 31, 2013
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3