Pryor v. City and County of San Francisco et al
Filing
169
ORDER re 167 Pretrial Conference - Interim. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 11/25/13. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
DAVID J. PRYOR,
Plaintiff,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
ORDER FOLLOWING SECOND
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
v.
10
11
No. C -12-02696 EDL
TEQUISHA CURLEY, et al.,
Defendant.
12
/
13
At the second pretrial conference in this case on November 21, 2013, the Court ordered as
14
15
follows:
16
1.
questionnaire.
17
18
No later than December 2, 2013, the parties shall provide a finalized copy of the juror
2.
No later than the close of business on November 26, 2013, the parties shall provide a
stipulation regarding Defendant’s net worth.
19
20
3.
As stated at the pretrial conference, Defendant’s Motion in Limine number 11 is granted.
21
4.
As stated at the pretrial conference, the parties will refrain from stating at trial that there was
22
an “Internal Affairs” investigation of the incident at issue. This resolves Defendant’s Motion
23
in Limine number 2.
24
5.
Motion in Limine number 1.
25
26
No later than December 2, 2013, the parties shall provide a stipulation to resolve Plaintiff’s
6.
Undersheriff Brin may testify in place of Captain Fisher if Brin provides a declaration
27
similar to that provided by Fisher, and Defendant makes Brin available for deposition by
28
Plaintiff before trial for approximately one hour. The parties are encouraged to stipulate to
additional time for the deposition if appropriate.
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
Dated: November 25, 2013
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Chief Magistrate Judge
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
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?