Percelle v. Pearson et al

Filing 323

ORDER RE: JUNE 13, 2016 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Signed by Hon. Thelton E. Henderson on 06/09/16. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

STEVE DALE PERCELLE,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7

v.
STEVEN PEARSON, et al.,

Case No. 12-cv-05343-TEH
ORDER RE: JUNE 13, 2016
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

Defendants.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

A pretrial conference is scheduled for this matter on June 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM.
Counsel shall come prepared to answer the following questions at the hearing.

12
13
14

For Both Parties
1. Please update the Court on the status of stipulations as to certain documents’

15

authenticity, as discussed on page 5 of the parties’ Joint Pretrial Conference

16

Statement.

17

2. Please discuss whether disclosure of a non-retained expert witness’s identity and

18

proposed testimony in a declaration in support of a Motion for Summary Judgment

19

is a sufficient disclosure for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2).

20

See Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. in Limine #5. Cite to authority where possible.

21

3. Does the issue of whether Defendants had sufficient evidence to validate Plaintiff as

22

a gang member relate to an element of a First Amendment Retaliation claim? If so,

23

which element? Why or why not?

24
25

For Plaintiff

26

4. Please address Defendants’ contention that your Administrative Motion for Writs of

27

Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum is mischaracterized as administrative, and instead

28

should have been filed as a noticed motion. See Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Admin Mot.

1
2

5. Please discuss whether you have provided an updated trial exhibit list to Defendants
with correct Bates Numbers. If so, when? If not, why not?

3
4

For Defendants

5

6. Please address Plaintiff’s contention that Canell v. Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.

6

1998), stands for the proposition that the 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) bar against mental

7

and emotional injury does not apply to First Amendment claims. See Pl.’s Opp’n to

8

Mot. in Limine #7.

9

7. Please address Plaintiff’s contention that his three additional months of
incarceration is a type of “personal indignity” caused by Defendants’ alleged

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

retaliation. See Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. in Limine #8. Put another way, even though

12

the Court ruled that the three additional months of incarceration could not be the

13

premise of a false imprisonment claim, why is it that the additional period of

14

incarceration cannot be a basis for damages under the remaining First Amendment

15

Retaliation claim? Cite to authority where possible.

16
17

The Court has recently granted a continuance in an eight-week criminal trial, which

18

will now begin on June 14, 2016. As such, the Court must reschedule the trial in this

19

matter. Counsel shall come to the pretrial conference prepared to set a new trial date.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: 06/09/16

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

2