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