Porter v. McDonough et al

Filing 47

ORDER that the parties should re-file their proposed witness lists on or before December 23, 2010, providing greater explanation of the substance of each witness's testimony. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Richard H. Kyle on 12/20/10. (kll)

Porter v. McDonough et al

Doc. 47

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Joseph A. Porter, Plaintiff, Civ. No. 09-2536 (RHK/SRN) ORDER v. Officer Mark McDonough, et al., Defendants. This matter is before the Court sua sponte. The parties have recently filed their initial trial materials in this matter, including their proposed witness lists. Pursuant to Local Rule 39.1(b)(1)(C), those lists were required to provide "a short statement of the substance of the expected testimony of each witness." Although the witness lists include brief summaries of the proposed witnesses' testimony, those summaries are, in the Court's view, lacking. For instance, Plaintiff summarizes the expected testimony of Anoka County Deputy Psyck as "testi[mony] regarding the incident and police dog practices," while Defendants summarize the testimony as "direct knowledge of Plaintiff['s] apprehension by police K9 on August 31, 2007." This is not sufficient. The parties should re-file their proposed witness lists, on or before December 23, 2010, providing a greater explanation of the substance of each witness's testimony ­ that

Dockets.Justia.com

is, what the party expects the witness will say while on the stand. In other words, counsel should ask themselves: why is this witness being called to testify? What will the witness say that is important to this case? Although a multi-page narrative is unnecessary, a paragraph (or two) detailing the specific facts about which each witness will testify should be provided.

Dated: December 20, 2010

s/Richard H. Kyle RICHARD H. KYLE United States District Judge