Atwood v. Cheney et al

Filing 288

AMENDED ORDER to correct date only on ORDER 287 . Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 3/2/2017. (dbm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION DAVID GARLAND ATWOOD, II V. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO.1:12-CV-168-SA-DAS JAMES JACKSON DEFENDANT ORDER Now before the Court is Plaintiff Atwood’s Motion for the Issuance of a Subpoena [281] to permit inspection and photography of a non-party’s residence. The Plaintiff also raised a concern with the Court about the timing of a trial witness subpoena for Mike Chaney. As to the subpoena to permit inspection, the Plaintiff did not raise this request at the final pre-trial conference. The Plaintiff now raises this request at the eleventh hour before trial. The motion is wholly devoid of any reason or rationale regarding the relevance of the requested inspection and photographs and how they may potentially relate to the remaining substantive issues of the case. In addition, the owner of the residence is not a party to this action, nor is he listed as a witness. However, if the appropriate foundation is laid at trial, the Plaintiff will be permitted to testify in the narrative, and to question other witnesses, as to first-hand knowledge of the location, the particularities of the place, distances, and view, and be permitted to utilize sketches or other admitted exhibits to otherwise describe the location subject to crossexamination. In response to a previous ore tenus motion by the Plaintiff, the Court permitted the issuance of a trial witness subpoena for Mike Chaney. The Plaintiff has now informed the Court that he is concerned, given the short length of time before trial, that he will not have adequate time to serve the subpoena. In order to allow as much time as possible for the appearance of the witness, the Court is willing to take Chaney’s testimony out-of-time, at any point during trial that is practicable. For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s Motion for the Issuance of Subpoena [281 to permit inspection is DENIED. All of the issues contained within Plaintiff’s other Motions for Subpoenas [274, 282] were addressed at the final pre-trial conference, and the relevant subpoenas were issued rendering these motions MOOT. Finally, Plaintiff’s ore tenus motion for a trial witness subpoena for Mike Chaney was GRANTED by a separate text order appearing on the docket in this case. SO ORDERED on this, the 2nd day of March, 2017. /s/ Sharion Aycock UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?