Williams v. Williams

Filing 195

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 186 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ISAIAH N. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8

No. C 07-4464 CW
ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM
NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

v.
DEBRA WILLIAMS,
Defendant.
________________________________/

9
On May 16, 2013, Plaintiff Isaiah Williams moved for
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

discovery sanctions against Defendant Debra Williams “for
11
spoliating and failing timely to produce evidence, as well as
12
making misrepresentations regarding the same.”

Docket No. 146.

13
In particular, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant and her employer,
14
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
15
(CDCR), withheld certain photographs and training records that
16
Plaintiff had requested several months earlier.

On June 20, 2013,

17
Magistrate Judge Beeler denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.
18
See Docket No. 179.

Her order noted that Plaintiff had received

19
the photographs he requested on May 7, 2013, more than a full week
20
before he filed his motion and two full months before trial was
21
set to begin.

Id. at 8.

22
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on June 25, 2013, seeking
23
relief from Judge Beeler’s order.

He asks the Court to reconsider

24
his earlier requests to (1) bar Defendant from using photographs
25
of Plaintiff during her opening statement and (2) allow Plaintiff
26
to state during his opening and closing statements that Defendant
27
and CDCR withheld evidence.
28

1

This motion is DENIED.

After reviewing Judge Beeler’s order,

2

as well as the parties’ briefing on the matter, the Court finds

3

that Judge Beeler’s order is neither “clearly erroneous” nor

4

“contrary to law.”

5

parties may use the photographs of Plaintiff during their opening

6

statements, subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence.

7

Furthermore, Plaintiff may not assert that Defendant and CDCR

8

withheld evidence without presenting admissible evidence to

9

support that assertion.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

Accordingly, both

Nothing in this order shall prevent Plaintiff from presenting

11

evidence at trial that any of Defendant’s witnesses, including

12

Defendant herself, misrepresented the existence or availability of

13

any CDCR photographs or records.

14

misrepresentations by specific CDCR officers and officials is

15

relevant to the credibility of those officers and officials and,

16

as such, may be introduced for impeachment purposes.

17

Evidence of such

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated: 7/3/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2