Percelle v. Pearson et al

Filing 379

ORDER Re: Testimony of Bill Jordan, Steven Maughmer, Julienne Stenner, Jennifer Nygaard, and Custodian of Records for Santa Clara Hospital System. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/01/16. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

Case No. 12-cv-05343-TEH
5

STEVEN DALE PERCELLE,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

v.
STEVEN PEARSON, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER RE: TESTIMONY OF BILL
JORDAN, STEVEN MAUGHMER,
JULIENNE STENNER, JENNIFER
NYGAARD, AND CUSTODIAN OF
RECORDS FOR SANTA CLARA
HOSPITAL SYSTEM

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

At the November 28, 2016 pretrial conference hearing, this Court heard oral

12

argument on Defendants’ objections to a number of Plaintiff’s proposed trial witnesses. On

13

November 30, 2016, the Court received a list of questions that Plaintiff’s counsel intends

14

to ask these witnesses should he decide to call them at trial. Having carefully considered

15

the parties’ written and oral arguments, the Court overrules Defendants’ objections and

16

rules the witnesses’ testimony admissible with the exceptions listed below.

17

Bill Jordan is a CDCR-designated witness who will provide testimony on prison

18

procedures. Defendants object to his testimony as irrelevant and cumulative. Defendants’

19

objections are hereby overruled. The proposed testimony is relevant to Plaintiff’s First

20

Amendment retaliation claim, except portions concerning a plan to reduce the number of

21

inmates housed in administrative segregation.

22

Steven Maughmer is a correctional officer supervisor who played a limited role in

23

validating Plaintiff as a gang member. Defendants object to his testimony as irrelevant and

24

cumulative. Defendants’ objections are hereby overruled. The Court finds that Mr.

25

Maughmer’s proposed testimony is relevant and its probative value is not substantially

26

outweighed by a danger of presenting cumulative evidence.

27
28

Julienne Stenner is a former CDCR librarian who will testify about her knowledge
of Plaintiff as a regular library user. Defendants object to her testimony as irrelevant and

1

cumulative. Defendants’ objections are hereby overruled. The Court finds that Ms.

2

Stenner’s proposed testimony is relevant and its probative value is not substantially

3

outweighed by a danger of presenting cumulative evidence.

4

Jennifer Nygaard is an Assistant Attorney General who testify about notices to

5

CDCR and to Defendants regarding Plaintiff’s negligent medical care lawsuit. Defendants

6

object to her testimony as irrelevant and cumulative. Defendants’ objections are hereby

7

overruled. The Court finds that Ms. Stenner’s proposed testimony is relevant and its

8

probative value is not substantially outweighed by a danger of presenting cumulative

9

evidence.

10

Lastly, the Court overrules Defendants’ objection to the recently disclosed medical

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

records from Santa Clara Health and Hospital System. As stated in the October 31, 2016

12

Order on Pretrial Motions, evidence of Plaintiff’s mental health treatment received since

13

July 20, 2015 is relevant to damages. These medical records will be admitted at trial, along

14

with earlier documents that Defendants already stipulated to. A custodian of records is not

15

needed for authentication purposes and will not be allowed to testify at trial.

16
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated: 12/01/16

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2