Uribe v. Babienco et al

Filing 99

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Alsup on 7/21/2016. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
CESAR URIBE,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

PHILIP BABIENCO,

14

Defendant.
/

15
16
17
18

No. C 13-01106 WHA

FOR GOOD CAUSE and after a final pretrial conference, the following constitutes the
final pretrial order and rulings on motions in limine:
1.

This case shall go to a JURY TRIAL on JULY 25, 2016, AT 7:30 A.M., and shall

19

continue until completed on the schedule discussed at the conference. The issues to be tried

20

shall be those set forth in the joint proposed pretrial order except to the extent modified by order

21

in limine. This final pretrial order supersedes the complaint, answer and any counterclaims,

22

cross-claims or third-party complaints, i.e., only the issues expressly identified for trial remain

23

in the case.

24
25
26

2.

Rulings on the motions in limine were made on the record at the pretrial

conference and are summarized later in this order.
3.

Except for good cause, each party is limited to the witnesses and exhibits

27

disclosed in the joint proposed final pretrial order less any excluded or limited by an order

28

in limine. Materials or witnesses used solely for impeachment need not be disclosed and may
be used, subject to the rules of evidence.

1
2

4.

The stipulations of facts set forth in the joint proposed final pretrial order are

approved and binding on all parties.

3

5.

A jury of 8 PERSONS shall be used.

4

6.

Each side shall have THREE-AND-A-HALF HOURS to examine witnesses (counting

direct examination, cross-examination, re-direct examination, re-cross examination, etc.).

6

Opening statements and closing arguments shall not count against the limit. If, despite being

7

efficient, non-duplicative, and non-argumentative in the use of the allotted time, one side runs

8

out of time and it would be a miscarriage of justice to hold that side to the limit, then more time

9

will be allotted.

10

7.

The parties shall follow the Court’s current Guidelines for Trial and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

5

Final Pretrial Conference in Civil Jury Cases, separately provided and available on the Internet

12

at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, which guidelines are incorporated as part of this order.

13

RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

14

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE.

15

1.

EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S PAST CONVICTIONS.

16

This motion is GRANTED.

17

Defendant’s counsel raised the possibility of including a jury instruction regarding the

18

credibility of the plaintiff such that the jury would be allowed to infer that plaintiff has a

19

criminal history. This order defers ruling on this issue until a later time.

20

2.

EXCLUDE CHARACTER EVIDENCE.
This order defers ruling on whether defendant may (1) cross-examine plaintiff about the

21
22

submission of the false declaration in the other lawsuit and (2) submit the sanctions order for

23

impeachment purposes until after defendant has completed the other portions of his

24

cross-examination of plaintiff.

25

3.

26
27

EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR LAWSUITS.
This motion is GRANTED subject to the ruling above on the submission of the false

declaration.

28
2

1

4.

EXCLUDE DEFENDANT FROM TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT AS TO THE STANDARD OF
CARE.

2
Defendant may not testify to the standard of care as a present-day opinion (as opposed to
3
a historical fact) unless plaintiff opens the door to such testimony in his cross-examination of
4
defendant.
5
5.

EXCLUDE THE TRANSACTION LIST AND CANTEEN PRICE LIST.

6
This order concludes that defendant may present the transaction list (with redactions)
7
and canteen list if he lays a foundation for the documents as business records. This order does
8
not reach the issue of whether the documents are admissible as business records.
9
If the documents are ruled admissible, reference to prior lawsuits shall be redacted.
10
1.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE.
11
EXCLUDE CERTAIN OPINIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DR. JEFFREY LIGHT.

12
This motion is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. Dr. Light may testify so long
13
as he makes clear that he did not examine plaintiff; that his testimony rests solely on records
14
and the testimony of other doctors; and that he is not making a diagnosis. However, Dr. Light
15
shall not be allowed to testify as to what was in defendant’s mind or as to the ultimate issue of
16
whether or not defendant was deliberately indifferent. Dr. Light also may not testify as to the
17
law and what it requires.
18
19

2.

EXCLUDE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE SUBSTANCE OR OUTCOME OF OTHER
LAWSUITS.

20

This motion is GRANTED.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: July 21, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3