United States of America v. Hialeah Housing Authority

Filing 206

ORDER FOLLOWING SECOND PRETRIALCONFERENCE BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 10/11/2011. (dkc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 10-22679-CIV-GOLD/GOODMAN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
HIALEAH HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
ORDER FOLLOWING SECOND PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE is before the Undersigned on the District Court’s Order
Referring Pretrial motions to Judge Goodman.

(DE# 196.) Pursuant to this

reference, I held the second of a series of pretrial conferences today with the
parties. During this hearing, the Undersigned made several additional rulings as
detailed below.
First, the government shall attempt to serve a subpoena for deposition on
Francisco Gonzalez within 2 weeks of today’s date. If the government is able to
locate and serve Mr. Gonzalez, then it shall file a notice of taking deposition with
the Court, indicating the date and time of the scheduled deposition.

Before

serving a subpoena, however, the government shall confer with defense counsel
and agree on deposition dates agreeable to both parties. If the parties schedule
Mr. Gonzalez’s deposition, then the Court will issue an order on the due date for
supplemental memoranda concerning his possible trial testimony.

1

Second, on October 25, 2011, at approximately 5:00 PM, the parties shall
simultaneously file legal memoranda on the admissibility of Dr. Steven Wender’s
anticipated expert trial testimony. These memoranda must be no longer than 5
pages each. No responses are permitted.
Third, on November 8, 2011, at approximately 5:00 PM, the parties shall
simultaneously file legal memoranda on the admissibility of Dr. Seth Hochman’s
anticipated expert trial testimony. These memoranda must be no longer than 5
pages each. No responses are permitted.
Fourth, the government will file a “damages” memorandum by November
14, 2011. In this memorandum, the government shall separately describe each
component of damage it is seeking, including the specific factual basis for each
component and an approximate dollar estimate of the damages. As to emotional
distress damages, the government must disclose whether any Rodriguez family
member for which it is seeking such damages has received any mental or
psychological care and, if so, then the government must describe the nature of
this care and the identity of the provider of this care. Defendant shall file a
response to the government’s “damages” memorandum by November 28, 2011.
Fifth, by December 1, 2011, the parties shall submit a new set of jointproposed jury instructions and verdict forms. Each proposed jury instruction shall
be on a separate page with a separate title. The portions of each proposed
instruction that the parties agree on shall be written in regular font. To the extent
there are disagreements, the government’s proposed wording shall be written in
bold font and the Defendant’s proposed wording shall be written in italic font.

2

The list of authorities for each citation shall be located at the bottom of each
instruction and must not be incorporated in any way within the body of any
instruction. Where disagreement exists, the government’s authorities shall be in
bold and the Defendant’s authorities in italics. The same rules shall apply to the
proposed verdict forms (i.e., agreed language in regular font, the government’s
proposal in bold, and Defendant’s proposal in italics).
Sixth, on or before January 13, 2012, the parties shall submit one joint list
of proposed voir dire questions. To the extent the parties do not agree on a
proposed voir dire question, each side may submit their own supplemental list at
the same time the joint list is filed.
Seventh, the parties shall make their respective trial exhibits available to
the other party for inspection, including both those categorized as “intend to offer”
and “may offer,” no later than October 25, 2011. Each party shall thereafter, if it
has any objections, file a chart containing objections, on an exhibit-by-exhibit
basis, no later than November 21, 2011. In the chart, the parties shall specify
the nature of their objection with an appropriate objection code. No responses to
the objections charts are permitted. If objections are filed, then the Undersigned
will schedule a hearing to consider the objections.
Eighth, the Undersigned will be issuing a report and recommendations
recommending that the District Court limit each party to only 4 trial witnesses in
the “other tenants at Project 16” category. The basis of this recommendation will
be that these witnesses are cumulative. 1 However, the Undersigned will not
1

Defendant alone submitted 42 different potential witnesses from this
category.
3

recommend that the parties be limited to any 4 specific witnesses. Instead, the
Undersigned will recommend that the parties are allowed to wait until the trial to
determine which particular witnesses to select among those already listed on
their witness list in this category.
Finally, the Undersigned also advised the parties at today’s hearing that
he will soon issue additional reports and recommendations on the outstanding
motions in limine involving Miguel Rodriguez’s workers compensation settlement
and Mark J. Mazz’s anticipated expert trial testimony.
DONE and ORDERED, in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, this 11th day of
October, 2011.

Copies furnished to:
The Honorable Alan Gold
All counsel of record

4