Carter v. The City of San Jose et al

Filing 63

FURTHER PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 7/19/2013. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2013)

1
2

*E-FILED: July 19, 2013*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

No. C12-01968 HRL

JAMIL CARTER,

12

Plaintiff,
FURTHER PRETRIAL ORDER

v.
13
14
15
16

THE CITY OF SAN JOSE; THE SAN JOSE
POLICE DEPARTMENT (“SJPD”); MICHAEL
SULLIVAN, individually and in his official
capacity as Lieutenant, SJPD; AND KEITH
COTTRELL, individually and in his official
capacity as Sergeant, SJPD,

17

Defendants.
/

18
19
20
21
22

There being no objection by defendants, plaintiff’s proposed exhibits (in binder) are
admitted.
Since there is no objection by plaintiff, defendants’ chart re plaintiff’s overtime is
admitted.

23

There being no objection to plaintiff’s amended proposed Exhibit 2 (Dkt. No. 57) re

24

defendants’ interrogatory responses, defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 is denied as moot.

25

As discussed at the June 10 further pretrial conference, plaintiff’s request for

26

reconsideration of the court’s ruling on defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8 is denied. Plaintiff

27

has not shown that reconsideration is warranted. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). However, depending on

28

what defendants present at trial, the court may consider allowing Thomas Correa to testify as a

1

rebuttal witness solely on the subject of badging and whether the department destroys the

2

badges of officers who leave the airport division. Before any such testimony will be allowed,

3

plaintiff must lay a foundation for Correa’s knowledge of defendants’ practices with respect to

4

that subject matter.

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff having advised that she no longer plans to use her intended chronology chart at
trial, defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 10 is denied as moot.
Because plaintiff agrees that she cannot seek punitive damages against a public entity,
the court finds that issue to be moot.
Plaintiff’s request for a special instruction re pretext, in addition to the relevant Ninth
Circuit pattern instructions, is denied.
The parties shall meet-and-confer re a jury verdict form and submit one that is agreeable
to both sides. The proposed verdict form shall be submitted by August 2, 2013.
Additionally, each side is to submit a letter brief, not exceeding 3 pages, explaining their

14

“disagreement” over 5 jury instructions on plaintiff’s state law claims, if any disagreement

15

remains. The parties’ respective letter briefs shall be filed no later than August 2, 2013.

16
17

SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 19, 2013

18
HOWARD R. LLOYD
19

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:12-cv-01968-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Christian Bayard Nielsen

[e-mail]

3

Nkia Desiree Richardson

[e-mail]

4

Thomas Kevin Bourke

[e-mail]

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3