Elder-Evins v. Casey et al

Filing 236

ORDER Re Exhibit list, witness list, and exhibits (with information to be provided by Tuesday, September 25, 2012, at 2 p.m.) (JUDGE BEELER, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
ANNETTE SHARLENE ELDER-EVINS,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

No. C 09-05775 SBA (LB)
ORDER RE EXHIBIT LIST, WITNESS
LIST, AND EXHIBITS

13
MICHAEL J. CASEY, et al.
14
15
16

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
The parties filed their joint pre-hearing statement, their stipulations of undisputed fact, their joint

17

exhibit list, and Defendant’s witness list. See ECF Nos. 235, 235-1, 235-2, and 235-3. The court

18

directs the parties to file the following additional information by Tuesday, September 25, 2012, at 2

19

p.m.

20

First, the court assumes that there are no additional exhibits by either party. If the court’s

21

assumption is incorrect, the parties shall file their separate exhibit lists and provide a copy of all

22

exhibits, as required by this court’s standing order (attached as ECF No. 229-1 to the court’s July 30,

23

2012 Order at ECF No. 229).

24

Second, the court directs the party to file an updated copy of the joint exhibit list at ECF No.

25

235-2 with an additional column after “Description” entitled “Location in the Record.” For

26

example, Exhibit 101, Dr. Apostle’s records previously filed under seal and bates stamped 00012-

27

00067, appears to be in the record at ECF No. 197. Exhibits 104 and 105, the 2006 and 2009

28

Superior Court Dockets, are in the record at ECF No. 203. This will allow the court to review the

ORDER (C 09-05775 SBA (LB))

1

records already in the record before the hearing. The court notes that Dr. Apostle’s records at ECF

2

No. 197 are bates stamped only up until 00065. If there are two more pages, the parties should

3

provide a copy to the court. The other problem is the following bates pages are illegible: 17-18, 40-

4

46, and 53-56. The court would like to review legible copies before the hearing. In the next

5

paragraph, the court directs the parties to bring copies of the exhibits to the hearing, but if Defendant

6

can provide a courtesy copy by email to the court’s orders box at [e-mail], the court

7

can review the information in advance. The court also asks Defendant to file a copy of Exhibit 103,

8

Dr. Apostle’s CV.

9

Third, as required by the court’s standing order, the parties must bring two sets of the exhibits to
the evidentiary hearing: (1) a set to be lodged for the record and (2) a chambers copy. Any records

11

to be filed under seal shall be accompanied by a sealing order stipulated to by the parties.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Fourth, the court assumes that Exhibit 102, “Dr. Apostle’s records,” likely is Dr. Apostle’s full

13

medical file. See Order, ECF No. 229 at 19 (noting that Defendant had subpoenaed Dr. Apostle to

14

appear with his full medical file). The court reminds the parties that any additional information

15

needs to be made part of the record (as discussed in point three). Also, the court will not require the

16

parties to lodge a full copy in advance but expects that Defendant already provided access to

17

Plaintiff (as required by the court in its order at ECF No. 229) and will be prepared to direct the

18

court’s attention at the hearing to any information that is not part of the already-filed records.

19

Fifth, because the exhibits are medical records and thus are not hearsay, the court assumes that

20

there will be no objection to their authenticity. If this assumption is wrong, Plaintiff must notify the

21

court on the timeline set forth in this order. The court already denied Plaintiff’s objection to the

22

record as irrelevant and prejudicial. See id. at 14 (holding that the records, while relevant to the

23

competency determination, are not sufficient to establish incompetency). The stipulation as to

24

authenticity will not affect Plaintiff’s relevance objections.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: September 24, 2012

27

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

28

ORDER (C 09-05775 SBA (LB))

2