Doe et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 170

ORDER REGARDING ISSUES RAISED IN SECOND PRETRIAL STATEMENT. Signed by Judge Thelton Henderson on 3/15/12. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 JANE DOE and ANNE RASKIN, 6 7 8 Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., NO. C10-04700 TEH ORDER REGARDING ISSUES RAISED IN SECOND PRETRIAL STATEMENT 9 Defendants. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 This matter being set for the commencement of jury trial on April 3, 2012, and both 12 parties having submitted substantial lists of anticipated witnesses, this Court issued an order 13 on February 1, 2012, requiring a second pretrial statement in advance of the second pretrial 14 conference, which is presently scheduled to occur on March 26, 2012, at 3:00 pm. On March 15 12, 2012, the parties timely filed their joint statement. 16 Though the Court’s order called for a detailed account of each witness anticipated by 17 each party, with a thorough statement of the anticipated testimony and relevance of each 18 witness, the parties nevertheless further included a number of ostensible motions, including 19 motions to exclude various witnesses, to bar the presentation of evidence on certain subject 20 matter, and to exclude all exhibits of the defense for failure to comply with filing deadlines 21 relative to the original trial date of January 10, 2012. 22 The Court regrets any confusion regarding the lodging of exhibits caused by the 23 continuance of the trial date in this case and the accompanying order. Nevertheless, the 24 inclusion of any argument, motion, request, or even quibble was not called for by the 25 February 1 order, which simply requested a statement regarding anticipated testimony, for 26 the sole purpose of clarifying the purpose of these witnesses for the Court and aiding in the 27 efficient management of the coming trial. The deadline for the filing of motions in limine in 28 1 this matter was established as 21 days before the original trial date by the Order for Pretrial 2 Preparation of February 14, 2011, and all motions in limine have, at the present time, been 3 filed and ruled upon. The motions included in the March 12, 2012 statement are therefore 4 both inappropriate and untimely, and are, accordingly, DENIED. 5 In light of the continuing vagueness of the answers offered by counsel in this case 6 regarding the relevance of their anticipated witnesses, and the difficulties exhibited by both 7 parties with regards to efficiency in this case, the Court hereby notifies the parties of its 8 intent to impose time limits for the presentation of each side’s case during trial. The specific 9 limitations imposed will be revealed on the opening day of trial. Counsel are advised to plan 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 their presentations accordingly. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: 3/15/2012 15 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?