Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 704

Order Regarding Testimony of David Merritt. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 8/4/2016. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

8
9
10
11

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiffs,
12
v.

ORDER REGARDING TESTIMONY OF
DAVID MERRITT

13
14

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

This court previously ruled that plaintiffs did not disclose the potential testimony of David

17

Merritt in a manner that offered defendant Miller adequate notice. Dkt. No. 692 at 3-4. Merritt’s

18

name was buried in plaintiffs’ Rule 26 disclosures as one of over 100 names with only a vague

19

description of his testimony, in contrast to Ed Summerfield, who was listed in a supplemental

20

disclosure containing only two names. Plaintiffs claim that Merritt’s testimony will be offered

21

solely for impeachment. After hearing the proffered testimony, the court finds that Merritt’s

22

testimony is not being offered solely for impeachment but as circumstantial evidence of defendant

23

Miller’s alleged discriminatory intent, an element of plaintiffs’ claim. Thus, plaintiffs’ failure to

24

adequately disclose Merritt’s testimony before trial is fatal. Merritt will not be allowed to testify.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 4, 2016
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge
1
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER REGARDING TESTIMONY OF DAVID MERRITT