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)
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?