Trzeciak v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

Filing 166

OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS 163 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Clarifications and Objections, and DENIES IN PART the relief requested in the 164 Motion for Clarifications and Objections and the 165 Leave to File Motion How Evidenc e Should be Submitted to the Court and that Defendant have no Right to Receive Either sides Evidence before 7/14/2015, Trial by Video, except insofar as Plaintiff requests the explanation provided in the order. Court REAFFIRMS its earlier Order requiring both parties to provide copies of their proposed exhibits to the Court by 6/30/2015, and the bench trial setting of 7/14/2015, at 9:30 a.m.. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 6/19/2015. cc: Pro se pltf, pro se dft (tc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
JOSEPH TRZECIAK, SR,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE M. PETRICH,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 2:10-CV-358-JEM

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Clarifications and
Objections [DE 163] and a Motion for Clarifications and Objections [DE 164], filed by Plaintiff
Joseph Trzeciak, pro se, on June 9, 2015, and a document titled “Leave to File Motion how
Evidence Should be Submitted to the Court and that Defendant or Plaintiff have no Right to Receive
Either Sides Evidence Before July 14, 2015, Trial by Video” [DE 165], filed by Plaintiff on June
12, 2015. Plaintiff requests clarification of several matters related to the upcoming bench trial, set
for July 14, 2015.
On June 3, 2015, the Court held a pretrial status conference. At that time, the parties agreed
that Plaintiff would appear at the first, liability phase of the bench trial via videoconference. The
Court found that since the matter is set for a bench trial, with no jury, and neither party is presenting
witnesses for this first phase of the trial, the distance Plaintiff Trzeciak would need to be brought,
across state lines, the number of state and federal officers needed for the transfer and the attendant
expense, as well as the danger involved, creates good cause and compelling circumstances to hold
the trial by videoconference. The Court ordered that both parties send their proposed exhibits to the
Court before June 30, 2015, to facilitate presentation of those exhibits at trial.
Plaintiff now requests that the Court order the Illinois correctional facility at which he is

being held to transport him across state lines to attend the trial in person. As explained at the most
recent hearing, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a) provides that “[f]or good cause in compelling
circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by
contemporaneous transmission from a different location.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a). The Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that there is no constitutional right for a prisoner to attend
his civil trial, and “ the district court has discretion to determine whether a prison inmate can attend
court proceedings in connection with an action initiated by the inmate.” Thornton v. Snyder, 428
F.3d 690, 697-99 (7th Cir. 2005) (concluding that there had been no abuse of discretion in a finding
good cause for pro se inmate to appear by videoconference at jury trial for claims addressing his
confinement when inmate was serving a life sentence, was considered a flight risk, would require
multiple officers to escort him the 120 miles to court, and was able to do everything “via
videoconference that he could have done had he been physically present in the courtroom”); see also
Barnes v. Black, 544 F.3d 807, 810 (7th Cir. 2008) (dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction an
appeal of district court’s denial of prisoner’s request to appear in person at his civil trial, after noting
that “‘[w]ritting’ prisoners to a distant court entails cost and even danger, and the district judge
deemed these compelling circumstances for allowing (with appropriate safeguards) video
conferencing as an alternative”). The Court has already bifurcated the bench trial into two phases,
and neither party is calling any witnesses for the first, liability phase of the trial, further limiting any
drawbacks associated with appearing via videoconference. The Court reaffirms its decision that this
case presents good cause and compelling circumstances for Plaintiff to appear via videoconference
rather than be transported across state lines, at great cost in time, manpower, financial resources, and
potential danger, for the brief liability phase of this bench trial.

2

Plaintiff also objects to the Court’s Order that both parties provide their exhibit lists in
advance of trial. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) governs pretrial disclosures and requires
that
a party must provide to the other parties and promptly file the
following information about the evidence that it may present at trial
other than solely for impeachment: . . . an identification of each
document or other exhibit, including summaries of other evidence –
separately identifying those items the party expects to offer and those
it may offer if the need arises.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A)(iii). Despite Plaintiff’s assertions, it is customary for parties to submit
an exhibit list to the Court, and the parties are often asked to stipulate to the admissibility of certain
exhibits before trial. The Court has not asked these two parties to stipulate to admissibility, but, in
order to facilitate trial, particularly given the limitations of videoconference, the Court will require
the parties to provide their proposed exhibits in their entirety (with the exception of any evidence
that may be used solely for impeachment) in advance of trial. Merely providing copies of exhibits
in advance does not prejudice the ability of either party to challenge the admissibility of any
evidence. In particular, Plaintiff raises concerns about Defendant’s failure to comply with
discovery, and the Court recognizes that Defendant was sanctioned for that lack of compliance.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a party who has failed to provide certain information in
discovery can be prevented from presenting that information as evidence at trial “unless the failure
was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Plaintiff may present his
arguments about the admissibility of particular evidence as well as the applicability of Rule 37
sanctions as to particular exhibits at trial.
Plaintiff also renews his request for the Court to rule on his previous request for a subpoena
for video evidence [DE 157]. As explained at the Pretrial Conference on May 14, 2015, the trial is
3

being bifurcated. The question of liability will be decided first, at the trial set for July 14, 2015, and
then, if necessary the Court will set the matter for trial on the question of damages and will at that
point address necessary subpoenas and witness lists for that portion of the trial.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File Motion
for Clarifications and Objections [DE 163], and DENIES in part the relief requested in the Motion
for Clarifications and Objections [DE 164] and the “Leave to File Motion how Evidence Should be
Submitted to the Court and that Defendant or Plaintiff have no Right to Receive Either Sides
Evidence Before July 14, 2015, Trial by Video” [DE 165], except insofar as Plaintiff requests the
explanation provided above.
The Court REAFFIRMS its earlier Order requiring both parties to provide copies of their
proposed exhibits to the Court on or before June 30, 2015, and the bench trial setting of July 14,
2015, at 9:30 a.m., at which Plaintiff will appear via videoconference.
So ORDERED this 19th day of June, 2015.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendant, pro se

4