Humphrey v. Prince of Peace Baptist Church
Filing
75
FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER: Jury Trial on 9/22/2008 at 7:30 a.m. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 9/11/2008. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2008)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PASTOR WALTER HUMPHREY, Plaintiff, v. PRINCE OF PEACE BAPTIST CHURCH, and DOES 125, Defendants. / FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER No. C 07-02790 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
11
For the Northern District of California
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
FOR GOOD CAUSE and after a final pretrial conference, the Court issues the
following final pretrial order: 1. This case shall go to a JURY TRIAL on SEPTEMBER 22, 2008, at 7:30 A.M., and
shall continue until completed on the schedule discussed at the conference. The issues to be tried shall be those set forth in the joint proposed pretrial order except to the extent modified by order in limine. This final pretrial order supersedes all the complaint, answer and any counterclaims, cross-claims or third-party complaints, i.e., only the issues expressly identified for trial remain in the case. 2. Except for good cause, each party is limited to the witnesses and exhibits
disclosed in the joint proposed final pretrial order less any excluded or limited by an order in limine. Materials or witnesses used solely for impeachment need not be disclosed and may be used, subject to the rules of evidence.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3.
The stipulations of facts set forth in the joint proposed final pretrial order are
approved and binding on all parties. 4. 5. A jury of EIGHT PERSONS shall be used. Each side shall have SIX HOURS to examine witnesses (counting direct
examination, cross-examination, re-direct examination, re-cross examination, etc.). Opening statements and closing arguments shall not count against the limit. 6. The parties shall follow the Court's current Guidelines for Trial and
Final Pretrial Conference, separately provided and available on the Internet at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, which guidelines are incorporated as part of this order. 7. Defendant's third motion in limine: (a) Denied, without prejudice to renew the objections at trial on a
United States District Court
11
For the Northern District of California
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
question-by-question basis. The statements alleged to be hearsay may be admissible for purposes other than to prove the matters asserted therein. (b) Defendant has withdrawn motions in limine 1 and 2.
Plaintiff's objections to late disclosed witnesses: (a) (b) Claudia Humphrey: Objection withdrawn. Wanda Pruitt: Denied (as presented), but the witness is permitted
to testify only for true impeachment purposes. (c) Chris Williams: Denied (as presented), but the witness is permitted
to testify only for true impeachment purposes. (d) Steven Porter: Denied (as presented), but the witness is permitted
to testify only for true impeachment purposes. (e) (f) Eileen Hardware: Objection withdrawn. Keisha Bishop: Denied (as presented), but the witness is permitted
to testify only for true impeachment purposes.
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Plaintiff's objections to exhibits: (a) Defendant's Exhibits Nos. 178183: Plaintiff's objections based
on FRE 401 and 403 are denied. The exhibits will not be categorically excluded, because they pertain to issues potentially relevant to this case. (b) Defendant's Exhibits Nos.186208: Plaintiff's objections based
on FRE 801 and 901 are denied. However, in order to introduce the exhibits, defendant must provide a proper foundation for the materials therein, by (i) presenting the bookkeeper who prepared the audit, and (ii) presenting the checks and materials necessary to provide a proper foundation.
United States District Court
11
For the Northern District of California
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Dated: September 10, 2008.
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?