Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 702

Supplemental Order Regarding Trial Demonstrative Materials. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 8/3/2016. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2016)

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
12

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

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

Plaintiffs,
13
v.

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
REGARDING TRIAL
DEMONSTRATIVE MATERIALS

14
15

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

The court ordered plaintiff Adil Hiramanek to provide defendant Miller and the court with

18

copies of the slides shown during plaintiff’s opening statement on August 2, 2016. Dkt. No. 700.

19

Defendant asserts that the copy of the presentation that plaintiff sent to defendant omitted certain

20

prejudicial slides that were published to the jury. Plaintiff contends that he provided Miller with

21

all of the slides that the jury actually saw. Plaintiff contends that the PowerPoint document he was

22

using contained additional slides but that he skipped prejudicial material when the court told him

23

that he could not present it. He further contends that the slides he skipped—and did not provide to

24

defendant or the court—constitute confidential work product.

25

What the court believes occurred is that Mr. Hiramanek quickly clicked through additional

26

slides of his PowerPoint document that, defendant contends, contained prejudicial material such

27

that these slides were displayed to the jury, albeit only for a short time. Mr. Hiramanek’s argument

28
1
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING TRIAL DEMONSTRATIVE MATERIALS

1

that these slides contain confidential work product is unpersuasive in light of the fact that he

2

would have presented these slides to the jury but for the court’s rulings. Accordingly, the court

3

finds that Mr. Hiramanek has waived work product protection for the PowerPoint document he

4

was using during his opening statement.

5

So that the court can evaluate defendant’s contention that plaintiff published prejudicial

6

information to the jury, by 5:00 pm on Thursday, August 4, 2016, plaintiff shall provide a

7

complete copy of his opening PowerPoint document, including any slides he “skipped” to

8

defendant and to the court.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 3, 2016
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING TRIAL DEMONSTRATIVE MATERIALS