Mathews et al v. City of Oakland Police Department et al
Filing
89
ORDER STRIKING 84 Joint Proposed Order filed by Richard McNeely, City of Oakland Police Department. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on November 20, 2013. (jcslc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2013)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SPRING MATHEWS, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-03235-JCS
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
ORDER STRIKING JOINT PROPOSED
PRETRIAL ORDER
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
CITY OF OAKLAND POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 84
Defendants.
12
13
On November 19, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (“Joint Proposed
14
Order”). The Court strikes the Joint Proposed Order because it does not comply with the Court’s
15
Further Case Management and Pretrial Order (Jury) (Dkt. No. 17) (“Pretrial Order”).
16
First, Plaintiffs have not submitted any lists of exhibits or witnesses. See Joint Proposed
17
Order at 4, 5. Exhibits and witnesses not listed by a party in a joint proposed final pretrial order
18
may not be used in that party’s case-in-chief. Pretrial Order ¶ V.C. Based on the Joint Proposed
19
Order, Plaintiffs would not be able to present any exhibits or witnesses in their case-in-chief.
20
Second, Plaintiffs cite claims in the Joint Proposed Order that have been dismissed by the
21
Court. For example, Plaintiffs claim that Oakland Police Officer Richard McNeely “participated in
22
a conspiracy to cover up his wrongful acts.” Joint Proposed Order at 2. This alludes to claims that
23
have already been disallowed by the Court. See Order Granting in Part and Den. in Part Defs.’
24
Mot. for Summ. J. at 25–27 (disallowing claim that City of Oakland “has an unconstitutional
25
policy designed to insulate and protect their officers who are involved in shootings and
26
promulgate a false rendition of events and inhibit free speech and inquiry”), 36 (disallowing claim
27
that City of Oakland “caused a cover-up of the incident”).
28
Third, Defendants’ list of witnesses is not in compliance with the Pretrial Order’s
1
requirements regarding anticipated testimony of witnesses. Specifically, the Court requires that for
2
each witness, the propounding party provides “a short statement of the substance of his/her
3
testimony and, separately, what, if any, non-cumulative testimony the witness will offer.” Pretrial
4
Order ¶ V.A.1. Further, “[i]f non-cumulative testimony is not spelled out, the Court will presume
5
the witness is cumulative.” Id. Defendants’ scant descriptions of anticipated testimony are not
6
sufficient. See Joint Proposed Order App. F.
7
Accordingly, the Joint Proposed Order is stricken. The parties are ordered to file a new
8
joint proposed final pretrial order that addresses the deficiencies identified above and complies
9
with the Pretrial Order by November 22, 2013 at 12:00 p.m.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 20, 2013
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge
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?