Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 667

ORDER Following Pretrial Conference. (Also denying without prejudice 663 ). Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 7/18/2016. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

12

Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW

Plaintiffs,
13
v.

ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE

14
L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

15

Re: Dkt. No. 663

Defendants.
16
The court held a pretrial conference in this matter on July 15, 2016. Plaintiff Adil

17
18

Hiramanek appeared telephonically. Plaintiff Roda Hiramanek did not appear due to health issues.

19

Mr. Hiramanek represented that Ms. Hiramanek authorized him to communicate to the court that

20

she waived her right to appear at the pretrial conference. James Brown appeared for defendant

21

Beth Miller. The court rules as follows.1

22

A.

23

The trial of plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Miller will commence with jury selection

24

at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 2, 2016. Each side will be allotted 8 hours of presentation time,

25

including opening statements, but not including closing statements or jury selection. The parties

Trial Schedule

26
27
28

1

The court expects the parties to follow any additional rulings made on the record at the pretrial
conference that are not inconsistent with this order.
1
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

1

should plan for trial to run each day on August 2, 3, and 4, 2016, with appropriate meal and rest

2

breaks. The court may adjust the exact schedule as the trial date approaches. Opening statements

3

and initial testimony will likely begin on Tuesday, August 2, 2016.

4

B.

5

Beth Miller, Adil Hiramanek, and Roda Hiramanek will be allowed to testify without the

6
7

Fact Witnesses and Subpoenas

need for subpoenas.
Defendant objects to the admission of any testimony from David Merritt, Ed Summerfield

8

and Shiv Palleti on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to adequately respond to interrogatories

9

seeking identification of any witnesses to alleged discriminatory conduct by defendant Miller. The
court grants defendant leave to file a motion to exclude the testimony of these witnesses by 5 pm

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

on Wednesday, July 20, 2016. The motion shall identify the relevant interrogatories, plaintiffs’

12

responses thereto, and any objections to the substance of these witnesses’ testimony. By 5 pm on

13

Monday, July 25, 2016, plaintiffs shall file a response. The motion and response may not exceed 5

14

pages each, and Adil and Roda Hiramanek may only file a single, combined response. The court

15

grants plaintiffs leave to request trial subpoenas from the clerk of the court for David Merritt, Ed

16

Summerfield and Shiv Palleti, but the court reserves ruling on whether these witnesses will be

17

allowed to testify.

18
19
20
21

Attorney James Brown, Senior District Judge Ronald M. Whyte, Lisa Lazer, Theresia
Sandhu, and Thomas Bloom will not be permitted to testify.
Caitlyn Burgess and Deputy McChristian will not be allowed to testify unless plaintiffs
introduce argument or evidence that would render their testimony relevant.

22

C.

23

If relevant and if an appropriate sponsoring witness can be found, plaintiffs may introduce

24

the personal medical records that they have disclosed to defendant. The court will not take judicial

25

notice or admit any evidence from medical publications or studies. By Wednesday, July 20,

26

2016—and preferably earlier—plaintiffs shall identify any physician who actually treated them

27

who plaintiffs wish to call as a witness. Plaintiffs’ submission shall include a brief statement

Medical Records and Medical Witnesses

28
2
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

1

describing the substance of the witness’s expected testimony. The court will then determine

2

whether to grant plaintiffs leave to request a subpoena from the clerk of the court. The court will

3

not allow plaintiffs to call an unidentified physician as a witness.

4

D.

5

Plaintiffs shall provide a reduced list of the exhibits they plan to introduce at trial. The

6
7

Exhibit Objections

parties shall meet and confer and submit any exhibit objections to the court by July 20, 2016.
The parties should assume that this court’s order precluding defendant from introducing

8

state court orders adverse to plaintiffs remains in place. See Dkt. No. 658 at 3-4. If defendant

9

wishes to introduce any state court orders regarding Mr. Hiramanek’s status as a vexatious litigant,
defendant must submit a brief with citation to relevant authority, not to exceed three pages, by

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

July 20, 2016. Plaintiffs need not file a response unless otherwise ordered by the court. However,

12

the court once again notes that if plaintiffs rely on state court rulings in support of their damages

13

arguments or for any other purpose, defendant will be entitled to discuss those rulings.

14

E.

15

The parties shall provide deposition transcript designations, except for testimony offered

16

Deposition Designations

solely for impeachment, by July 20, 2016. Responses are due on July 25, 2016.

17

F.

18

The parties shall submit any amended voir dire questions to the court by July 20, 2016.

19

G.

20

Defendant’s request for an order to show cause regarding terminating sanctions, Dkt. No.

21
22
23

Amended Voir Dire

Defendant Request for Order to Show Cause

663, is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 18, 2016
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

3
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE