Jenkins et al v. City of Richmond

Filing 586

ORDER Re Plaintiff's Witness List and Pre-March 2007 Evidence (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JAMES JENKINS, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S WITNESS
LIST AND PRE-MARCH 2007
EVIDENCE

CITY OF RICHMOND,

12

No. C-08-3401 EMC

Defendant.
___________________________________/

13
14
15

On November 26, 2013, as part of the party's Joint Pretrial Conference Statement, Plaintiff

16

provided his witness list. Dkt. No. 559, at 13. This Court finds this witness list deficient in two

17

respects. First, the bulk of this witness list consists simply of Plaintiff re-filing the witness list

18

Plaintiff's prior counsel submitted to the Court in May 2010. Id. at 15. A number of developments

19

have occurred since then, including the removal of three plaintiffs from this action. Second,

20

Plaintiff's witness list does not comply with this Court's Pretrial Civil Instructions which require that

21

a witness list provide, “[f]or each witness . . . an estimate regarding the length of testimony

22

(including direct and cross-examination).”

23

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an updated witness list that complies with this

24

Court's order and does not consist of Plaintiff merely restating a three and a half year old witness

25

list. Rather, Plaintiff shall only include those witnesses who Plaintiff reasonably intends to call at

26

trial.

27
28

Further, on December 12, 2013, this Court ordered Plaintiff to provide a list of “all preMarch 2007 evidence he intends to introduce at trial. In addition, for each instance of pre-March

1

2007 evidence, Plaintiff shall state Plaintiff's theory as to why the evidence is relevant to the seven

2

acts of alleged discrimination and retaliation involved in this case.” Dkt. No. 578. Plaintiff filed his

3

response on December 14, 2013. Dkt. No. 582. Plaintiff's response lists the pre-March 2007

4

evidence he seeks to introduce but does not state the theory of relevance on which he is relying to

5

introduce this evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to state, for each pre-March 2007

6

piece of evidence or testimony he seeks to introduce, the theory of relevance on which he is relying

7

for the admissibility of this evidence.

8
9

shall be filed no later than 5:00pm, Wednesday, December 18, 2013. Failure to comply with this
order may result in sanctions, including evidentiary sanctions.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff's revised witness list and revised statement regarding pre-March 2007 evidence

12

Dated: December 17, 2013

13
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2