Atwood v. Cheney et al

Filing 326

PRETRIAL ORDER. Estimated length of trial: 4 days. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 7/17/2017. (dbm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION

DAVID GARLAND ATWOOD, II

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12CV168-SA-DAS

JAMES JACKSON, et al.

DEFENDANTS

PRETRIAL ORDER

1.

Choose [by a ✔ mark] one of the following paragraphs, as is appropriate to the action:

If a pretrial conference was held
A pretrial conference was held as
follows:

Date: February 21, 2017

Time: 10:00 a.m.________

United States Courthouse at Aberdeen, Mississippi before the following judicial
officer:
U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock

2.

The following counsel appeared:

a.

For the Plaintiff:
Name
David Garland Atwood, II
Pro se

Postal and Email
Addresses
Telephone No.
439 Garden Grove
[phone]
Street
Vicksburg, MS 39180
[e-mail]

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

b.

For the Defendant:
Name
Wilson Minor

Postal and Email
Addresses
Telephone No.
MS Attorney General’s
[phone]
Office
Civil Litigation Division
Post Office Box 220
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
[e-mail]

3.

The pleadings are amended to conform to this pretrial order.

4.

The following claims (including claims stated in the complaint, counterclaims,
crossclaims, third-party claims, etc.) have been filed:
42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment against
James Jackson.

5.

The basis for this court’s jurisdiction is: 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 42 U.S.C. §1983

6.

The following jurisdictional question(s) remain(s): None.

7.

The following motions remain pending:
a. Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion in Limine [Doc. 320]
b. Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas [Doc. 319]
c. Plaintiff’s Motion to Close Courtroom During Confidential Testimony [Doc. 316]

8.

The parties accept the following concise summaries of the ultimate facts as claimed by:
a.

Plaintiff:
James Jackson, acting on orders of Mike Chaney, reopened a closed investigation
into a fire that was never ruled an arson in political retaliation for my recently
published book that was critical of Sheriff Martin Pace, a friend of Chaney’s and
the Atwood Family, which were also friends of Chaney. Acting without evidence,
Jackson secured an arrest
warrant without evidence of a crime and without
evidence of any participation by me, in direct contradiction of all exculpatory
evidence.
2

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

b.

Defendant:
On November 11, 2009, a lake house in Attala County owned by Emmett Atwood
burned to the ground. Attala County Deputy Sheriff called Defendant James
Jackson, a Deputy State Fire Marshal, to investigate the fire. After inspecting the
scene of the fire, Jackson concluded that the fire was of incendiary origin and
proceeded to open an arson investigation. Jackson subsequently contacted
Emmett Atwood, who informed Jackson that he suspected his grandson, Plaintiff
David Atwood, had started the fire. According to Emmett Atwood, David had
been involved in an ongoing feud with him and other members of the Atwood
family.
On March 3, 3010, Jackson met with Joshua Chamblee, David’s ex-boyfriend, in
Carthage, Mississippi, to question him about the fire that burned down Emmett’s
lake house in Attala County. Chamblee denied that he or David had any
involvement in the fire. However, Jackson sensed that Chamblee was not telling
the truth based on his demeanor during the interview. Accordingly, Jackson
continued to investigate the arson.
On July 29, 2011, Jackson questioned Chamblee a second time at the Leake
County Sheriff’s Department. Chamblee stated that on November 11, 2009, he
and David Atwood drove down Highway 12 from Starkville for an hour until they
stopped in a woody area. According to Chamblee, David instructed him to exit
the vehicle, at which point David proceeded to walk behind a house with a plastic
bag in his hand. Chamblee stated that when they started walking back towards
the car, he saw flames coming from the house. Chamblee also recalled David
saying that house belonged to his grandfather. Finally, Chamblee explained that
the reason he had not told the truth to Jackson on March 3, 2010, was that David
Atwood had threatened to burn down his mother’s house or the houses of other
family members if he told the State Fire Marshal’s Office that David started the
fire. Jackson recorded the interview of Chamblee and also obtained a written
statement from Chamblee implicating David Atwood in the arson.
On that same date, Jackson traveled to Attala County and swore out an affidavit
against David Atwood for first degree arson. Jackson submitted the affidavit to
Attala County Justice Court Judge Ronald Stewart and requested the issuance of a
warrant for Atwood’s arrest. Additionally, Jackson showed Judge Stewart
Chamblee’s written statement. Based on Chamblee’s written statement admitting
that he witnessed David Atwood set fire to his grandfather’s lake house, Judge
Stewart found that there was probable cause to arrest David for first degree arson
and issued an arrest warrant to Jackson.
On August 1, 2011, David turned himself into the Attala County Sheriff’s
Department and was booked into the Attalla County Jail. He subsequently
3

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

bonded out of the jail that same day after posting bail. On October 12, 2011,
Atwood’s preliminary hearing was held in Attala County Justice Court. After
hearing Jackson’s and Deputy Sheriff Nail’s testimony, Judge Stewart found that
there was probable cause for the first degree arson charge and bound Atwood’s
case over to the Attala County grand jury.
The Attala County District Attorney’s Office presented David Atwood’s case to
an Attala County grand jury in 2012. The grand jury decided not to indict
Atwood for first degree arson and returned a “no bill” against him.

9.

a.

The following facts are established by the pleadings, by stipulation, or by
admission:
1.

2.

On August 1, 2011, Plaintiff David Atwood turned himself in and bonded
out of the Attala County Jail that same day.

3.

Attala County Justice Court Judge Ronald Stewart set Plaintiff David
Atwood’s bail at $50,000.

4.

On October 12, 2011, Plaintiff David Atwood appeared before Attala
County Justice Court Judge Ronald Stewart for his preliminary hearing.

5.

At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Attala County Justice Court
Judge Ronald Stewart found that there was probable cause for the first
degree arson charge against Plaintiff David Atwood, and bound Atwood’s
case over to the grand jury.

6.

b.

On July 29, 2011, Attala County Justice Court Judge Ronald Stewart
issued a warrant for the arrest of Plaintiff David Atwood for first degree
arson.

In March 2012, an Attala County grand jury returned a “no bill” against
Plaintiff David Atwood for first degree arson.

The contested issues of fact are as follows:
1.

Whether James Jackson is liable in his individual capacity to Plaintiff
David Atwood for false arrest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in violation of
the Fourth Amendment. (Mixed Question of Law and Fact)

4

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

2.

3.

Whether James Jackson intentionally and maliciously made false or
misleading statements, or withheld exculpatory information, when he
obtained an arrest warrant for Plaintiff David Atwood from Attala County
Justice Court Judge Ronald Stewart on July 29, 2011.

4.

Whether James Jackson was aware of any facts indicating that Joshua
Chamblee had a motivation to lie when Joshua gave a statement to the
State Fire Marshal’s Office on July 29, 2011, implicating Plaintiff David
Atwood in the arson which destroyed Emmett Atwood’s lake house.

5.

Whether James Jackson was aware of any facts indicating that the
information provided by Joshua Chamblee on July 29, 2011, was
unreliable.

6.

Whether James Jackson is entitled to qualified immunity for false arrest in
violation of the Fourth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Mixed
Question of Law and Fact)

7.

c.

Whether probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff David Atwood for arson
on July 29, 2011, after Joshua Chamblee’s statement to the State Fire
Marshal’s Office. (Mixed Question of Law and Fact)

Whether James Jackson’s actions caused Plaintiff David Atwood to be
detained in the Covington County Jail for four months.

The contested issues of law are as follows:
1.

2.

Whether probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff David Atwood for arson
on July 29, 2011, after Joshua Chamblee’s statement to the State Fire
Marshal’s Office. (Mixed Question of Law and Fact)

3.

10.

Whether James Jackson is liable in his individual capacity to Plaintiff
David Atwood for false arrest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in violation of
the Fourth Amendment. (Mixed Question of Law and Fact)

Whether James Jackson is entitled to qualified immunity for false arrest in
violation of the Fourth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Mixed
Question of Law and Fact)

The following is a list and brief description of all exhibits (except exhibits to be used for
impeachment purposes only) to be offered in evidence by the parties. Each exhibit has
been marked for identification and examined by counsel.
5

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

a.

To be offered by the Plaintiff:

1)

The Complaint and attached exhibits

2)

Excerpts from Plaintiff’s book, Into Hell I Rode

3)

Mike Chaney’s and James Jackson’s Answers to the Complaint

4)

Affidavit of Melba June Tolleson

5)

Preliminary hearing notes of Rosalind Jordan

6)

Bail bond records of Sherrie Williams/ACE bonding

7)

Fire Marshal investigative file and reports

8)

Attala County Sheriff’s Office file

9)

Mississippi Farm Bureau insurance documents

10)

Attala County Grand Jury No-Bill documents

11)

Affidavits of Tim Nail

12)

Tim Nail’s Response to First set of Interrogatories

13)

Time Nail’s Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories

14)

James Jackson’s Interrogatory Responses

15)

Tim Nail’s Supplemental Interrogatory Responses

16)

James Jackson’s Comprehensive Report on Josh Chamblee

17)

James Jackson’s Supplemental Interrogatory Responses

18)

Tim Nail’s Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories regarding Court order of 331-16

19)

James Jackson’s and Mike Chaney’s Motions for Summary Judgment and
attached exhibits [Docs. 213, 214, 216 & 217]

20)

Mike Chaney’s Responses to Interrogatories
6

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

21)

All documents and filings related to Emmett and Kade Atwood’s failure to attend
their subpoenaed depositions

22)

Aerial photographs of the Atwood lake house property and photographs of the
property

23)

Covington County Justice Court records from Plaintiff’s separate criminal case.

24)

Attala County Justice Court records regarding Joshua Chamblee

25)

Warren County Chancery Court records from paternity suit against Emmett
Atwood

26)

Mississippi Supreme Court opinion in Atwood v. Hicks, 538 So. 2d 404 (1989)

27)

Photographs of Emmett Atwood and guests at lake house

28)

Vicksburg Post articles written by Plaintiff

29)

YouTube video of Plaintiff and Joshua Chamblee

30)

Mike Traxler divorce pleadings

31)

Court pleadings from Discover Bank v. Mike Traxler

32)

National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion
Investigations (2004 Edition)

33)

Summons in Vivian Quinn Atwood v. David Garland Atwood, II (Chancery Court
of Warren County, No. 2009-312-GN)

34)

March 13, 1967 Grand Jury Indictment of Atwood Chevrolet-Olds, Inc.

35)

Warren County Sheriff’s Department 2016 Pay Scale

36)

AT&T cell phone records of Plaintiff for November 2009

37)

Mapping of Distance and Travel Time from Starkville to Kosciusko

38)

Attala County Justice Court Records related to Plaintiff David Atwood

7

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

The authenticity and admissibility in evidence of the preceding exhibits are
stipulated. If the authenticity or admissibility of any of the preceding exhibits is
objected to, the exhibit must be identified below, together with a statement of the
specified evidentiary ground(s) for the objection(s):
P-1

Defendant would object to the introduction of these documents on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay); that they are wholly
irrelevant to the merits of the case; and they are self-serving and cumulative.

P-3

Defendant would object to the introduction of these documents on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay); and that they are wholly
irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-4

Defendant would object to the introduction of this document on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay); that it is wholly
irrelevant to the merits of the case; and it is self-serving and cumulative.

P-5

Defendant would object to the introduction of these documents on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay); and that they are wholly
irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-7

To the extent that any of the Fire Marshal’s investigative file and reports
contain narratives regarding the arson investigation, the arrest of Plaintiff, and the
presentation of the case to the grand jury, Defendant would object to the
introduction of such records on the basis of hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay
(double hearsay).

P-11

Defendant would object to the introduction of these affidavits on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay); and that they are wholly
irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-12

Defendant would object to the introduction of this document on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay); and that it is wholly
irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-13

Defendant would object to the introduction of this document on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay); and that it is wholly
irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-14

Defendant would object to the introduction of this document on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay).

8

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

P-15

Defendant would object to the introduction of this document on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay); and that it is wholly
irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-16

To the extent these records contain information about Joshua Chamblee’s arrest
history, Defendant would object to the introduction these records on the basis that
they are not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 608(b), 609; and that this
information’s probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice to the Defendant, and/or confusing the jury.

P-17

Defendant would object to the introduction of this document on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay).

P-18

Defendant would object to the introduction of this document on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay); and that it is wholly
irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-19

Defendant would object to the introduction of these documents and records on the
basis of hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay); that they are
wholly irrelevant to the merits of the case; and cumulative.

P-21

Defendant would object to the introduction of these documents on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay); and that they are wholly
irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-22

Defendant would object to the introduction of these photographs on the basis of
lack of authentication; and lack of relevance to the merits of the case.

P-25

Defendant would object to the introduction of these records on the basis that they
are wholly irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-26

Defendant would object to the introduction of these records on the basis that they
are wholly irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-27

Defendant would object to the introduction of these photographs on the basis of
lack of authentication and relevance to the merits of the case.

P-28

Defendant would object to the introduction of these articles on the basis that they
are wholly irrelevant to the merits of the case and cumulative of other evidence.

P-29

Defendant would object to the introduction of this video on the basis that it is
wholly irrelevant to the merits of the case; and that it is self-serving and
cumulative.
9

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

P-30

Defendant would object to the introduction of these records on the basis
that they are extrinsic evidence not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 608(b); and
that they are wholly irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-31

Defendant would object to the introduction of these records on the basis
that they are extrinsic evidence not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 608(b); and
that they are wholly irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-32

Defendant would object to the introduction of this document on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay); and that it is wholly
irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-33

Defendant would object to the introduction of this document on the basis of
hearsay and/or hearsay within hearsay (double hearsay); and that it is wholly
irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-34

Defendant would object to the introduction of this indictment on the basis that
it is not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 608(b), 609; that it is wholly
irrelevant to the merits of the case; and that this information’s probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the Defendant,
and/or confusing the jury.

P-35

Defendant would object to the introduction of this document on the basis that it is
wholly irrelevant to the merits of the case.

P-36

Defendant would object to the introduction of these records on the grounds
that they are wholly irrelevant to the merits of the case; that their probative value,
if any, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the
Defendant, and/or confusing the jury; and that Plaintiff failed to identify these
records in his Initial Disclosures and failed to seasonably supplement his Initial
Disclosures with these records.

b.

To be offered by the Defendant:

D-1

Photographs of Emmett Atwood’s lake house taken before fire

D-2

Photographs of Emmett Atwood’s lake house taken after fire

D-3

Document entitled “David Atwood, II Happenings Threats, Etc.” created by
Emmett Atwood and provided to James Jackson

D-4

11-13-09 Statement of David Atwood to Attala County Sheriff’s Department

D-5

11-13-09 Statement of Joshua Chamblee to Attala County Sheriff’s Department
10

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

D-6

3-03-10 Statement of Joshua Chamblee to Mississippi State Fire Marshal’s Office

D-7

CD containing audio recording of 7-29-11 interview of Joshua Chamblee by
Mississippi State Fire Marshal’s Office

D-8

Transcript of 7-29-11 interview of Joshua Chamblee by Mississippi State Fire
Marshal’s Office

D-9

7-29-11 Written Statement of Joshua Chamblee to Mississippi State Fire
Marshal’s Office

D-10 Affidavit of James Jackson for issuance of warrant to arrest David Garland
Atwood, II for arson
D-11 Arrest warrant issued by Attala County Justice Court Judge Ronald Stewart for
David Garland Atwood, II
D-12

Uniform Justice Court Criminal Record in State of Mississippi v. David Garland
Atwood (Case # 62593)
The authenticity and admissibility in evidence of the preceding exhibits are
stipulated. If the authenticity or admissibility of any of the preceding exhibits is
objected to, the exhibit must be identified below, together with a statement of the
specified evidentiary ground(s) for the objection(s):

D-3

Plaintiff objects to the introduction of this document on the basis of hearsay, lack
of relevance, lack of personal knowledge, and that its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Plaintiff.

D-7

Plaintiff objects to the introduction of the audio recording of Joshua Chamblee’s
interview on the basis of lack of authentication; and to the extent it references
Plaintiff’s criminal history on the basis that it lacks relevance; and that its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to
Plaintiff.

D-8

Plaintiff objects to the introduction of the transcript of Joshua Chamblee’s
interview on the basis of lack of authentication; and to the extent it references
Plaintiff’s criminal history on the basis that it lacks relevance; and that its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to
Plaintiff.

D-9

Plaintiff objects to the introduction of the Joshua Chamblee’s written statement on
the basis of lack of authentication.
11

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

Plaintiff generally objects to the admission of any exhibits containing any
reference to his criminal history or the Vivian Quinn Atwood lawsuit.
11.

The following is a list and brief description of charts, graphs, models, schematic
diagrams, and similar objects which will be used in opening statements or closing
arguments, but which will not be offered in evidence: None
Objections, if any, to use of the preceding objects are as follows: None.
If any other objects are to be used by any party, such objects will be submitted to
opposing counsel at least three business days before trial. If there is then any objection to
use of the objects, the dispute will be submitted to the court at least one business day
before trial.

12.

The following is a list of witnesses Plaintiff anticipates calling at trial (excluding
witnesses to be used solely for rebuttal or impeachment). All listed witnesses must be
present to testify when called by a party unless specific arrangements have been made
with the trial judge before commencement of trial. The listing of a WILL CALL witness
constitutes a professional representation, upon which opposing counsel may rely, that the
witness will be present at trial, absent reasonable written notice to counsel to the contrary.

Name

Will/
May
Call

[F]act/
[E]xpert
[L]iability/
[D]amages

Teresa Lyle

May Call

F/L/D

3716 Highway 16
Carthage, MS 39051
[phone]

Paul Lyle

May Call

F/L/D

3716 Highway 16
Carthage, MS 39051
[phone]

Sheriff Tim Nail

May Call

F/L/D

Attala County Sheriff’s
Department
112 West Adams Street
Kosciusko, MS 39090
[phone]

Sheriff Martin Pace

May Call

F/L/D

Warren County Sheriff’s
Department

12

Business Address &
Telephone Number

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

1000 Grove Street
Vicksburg, MS 39183
[phone]
Mike Chaney

May Call

F/L/D

Mississippi Insurance
Department
1001 Woolfolk State Office
Building
501 North West Street
Jackson, MS 39201
[phone]

Ricky Davis

May Call

F/L/D

Mississippi State Fire
Marshal’s Office
660 North Street
Jackson, MS 39201
[phone]

Rosalind Jordan

May Call

F/L/D

117 East Washington Street
Kosciusko, MS 39090
[phone]

Joan Campbell

May Call

F/L/D

439 Garden Grove Street
Vicksburg, MS 39180
[phone]

Sherry Williams

May Call

F/L/D

Ace Surety Bail Bonding
Company
175 A West Williams Drive
Pheba, MS 39755
662-769-1365

Richard Cain

May Call

F/L/D

662-582-6474

Jan Hyland Daigre

May Call

F/L/D

Miss. Farm Bureau
1009 Cherry Street
Vicksburg, MS 39180
601-636-3961

Ronnie Stewart

May Call

F/L/D

2255 Attala Road 4233
Kosciusko, MS 39090
662-289-6288

Det. Mike Traxler

May Call

F/L/D

Warren Co. Sheriff's Dept.

13

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

1000 Grove Street
Vicksburg, MS 39180
601-636-1761
Det. Todd Dykes

May Call

F/L/D

Warren Co. Sheriff's Dept.
1000 Grove Street
Vicksburg, MS 39180
601-636-1761

Billie Joe Heggins

May Call

F/L/D

Warren Co. Sheriff's Dept.
1000 Grove Street
Vicksburg, MS 39180
601-636-1761

Will testify live: All who are called.

Will testify by deposition:
Entire deposition of Teresa Lyle.
Entire deposition of Judge Ronald Stewart.
Portions of deposition of Emmett Atwood, except for the following: P. 16, L. 8-25; P.
17, L. 1-4 & 20-25; P 18, L. 19-23; P. 19, L. 1-3; P. 20, L. 18-25; P. 21 – 48; P. 49, L. 15; P. 50, L. 18-25; P. 51-53; P. 57, L. 24-25; P. 58, L. 1-10; P. 61, L. 24-25; P. 62-78; P.
81, L. 2-25; P. 82, L. 1-14 & 22-25; P. 83-89 but stop at Line 21; P. 103, L. 11-12; P.
105, L. 13-14; P. 108, L. 21-23; P. 109, L. 18-19; P. 117, L. 13-15 & 25; P. 118, L 8-9
except for the answer, “Yes”; P. 120, L. 12-16 except for answer, “No”; P. 121, L. 9-10;
P. 124, L. 17-25; P. 125, L. 1-9; P. 131, L. 6-18; P. 132, L. 13-18; P. 134, L. 13-17; P.
136, L. 17-25; P. 137-139, but stop at Line 7; P. 140, L. 20-25; P. 141, L. 1-5 & 14-25; P.
142-43.
Portions of deposition of Kade Atwood, except for the following: Page 14, L. 2-8; P.
33, L. 2 and 13-17; P. 34, L. 8-25; P. 35, L. 1-24; P. 37, L. 22.
Portions of deposition of Joshua Chamblee, except for the following: P. 17, L. 13-19; P.
28, L. 1-25; P. 29, L. 17; P. 33, L. 19-25; P. 34, L. 1-10; P. 63, L. 24; P. 64, L. 1 & 10.
State whether the entire deposition, or only portions, will be used. Counsel must confer,
no later than twenty-one days before the commencement of trial, to resolve all
controversies concerning all depositions (electronically recorded or otherwise). All
controversies not resolved by the parties must be submitted to the trial judge not later
than fourteen days before trial. All objections not submitted within that time are waived.
14

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

13.

The following is a list of witnesses Defendant anticipates calling at trial (excluding
witnesses to be used solely for rebuttal or impeachment). All listed witnesses must be
present to testify when called by a party unless specific arrangements have been made
with the trial judge before commencement of trial. The listing of a WILL CALL witness
constitutes a professional representation, upon which opposing counsel may rely, that the
witness will be present at trial, absent reasonable written notice to counsel to the contrary.

Name

Will/
May
Call

[F]act/
[E]xpert
[L]iability/
[D]amages

James Jackson

May Call

F/L/D

Mississippi State Fire
Marshal’s Office
660 North Street
Jackson, MS 39201
[phone]

Ricky Davis

May Call

F/L/D

Mississippi State Fire
Marshal’s Office
660 North Street
Jackson, MS 39201
[phone]

Mike Ivy

May Call

F/L/D

Mississippi State Fire
Marshal’s Office
660 North Street
Jackson, MS 39201
[phone]

Sheriff Tim Nail

May Call

F/L/D

Attala County Sheriff’s
Department
112 West Adams Street
Kosciusko, MS 39090
[phone]

Teresa Lyle

May Call

F/L/D

3716 Highway 16
Carthage, MS 39051
[phone]

Paul Lyle

May Call

F/L/D

3716 Highway 16

15

Business Address &
Telephone Number

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

Carthage, MS 39051
[phone]
Emmett Atwood

May Call

F/L/D

Plaintiff David
Atwood

May Call

2339 N Frontage Rd.
Vicksburg, MS 39180
[phone]

F/L/D

Will testify live: All who are called.

Will testify by deposition:
The following portions of Joshua Chamblee’s deposition: P. 4, L. 15-17; P. 6, L. 13 thru
P. 19, L. 12; P. 19, L. 24; P. 20, L. 1 thru P. 21, L. 24; P. 22, L. 3-25; P. 23, L. 4; P. 25,
L. 21 thru P. 26, L. 1; P. 26, L. 21 thru P. 28, L. 1; P. 31, L. 4-18; P. 34, L. 23 thru P. 35
L. 14; P. 40, L. 8-22; P. 41, L. 2-5; P. 51; L. 10 thru P. 52, L. 7; P. 73, L. 1-12; P. 75,
L. 14 thru P. 76, L.6; P. 77, L. 7-24; P. 79, L. 7 thru P. 80, L. 1; P. 80, L. 22 thru P. 81, L.
2; P. 81, L. 11-13; P. 96, L. 2-17; P. 96, L. 25 thru P. 97, L. 23.
State whether the entire deposition, or only portions, will be used. Counsel must confer,
no later than twenty-one days before the commencement of trial, to resolve all
controversies concerning all depositions (electronically recorded or otherwise). All
controversies not resolved by the parties must be submitted to the trial judge not later
than fourteen days before trial. All objections not submitted within that time are waived.
✔

14.

This (✔)

is

is not a jury case.

15.

Counsel suggests the following additional matters to aid in the disposition of this civil
action: None.

16.

Counsel estimates the length of the trial will be 4 days.

17.

As stated in paragraph 1, this pretrial order has been formulated (a) at a pretrial
conference before a judicial officer, notice of which was duly served on all parties, and at
which the parties attended as stated above, or (b) the final pretrial conference having been
dispensed with by the judicial officer, as a result of conferences between the parties.
Reasonable opportunity has been afforded for corrections or additions prior to signing.
16

FORM 3 (ND/SD MISS. DEC. 2011)

This order will control the course of the trial, as provided by Rule 16, Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and it may not be amended except by consent of the parties and the
court, or by order of the court to prevent manifest injustice.
ORDERED, this the 17th day of July, 2017.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17