Tiwari et al v. Mattis

Filing 162

MINUTE ORDER denying in part and deferring in part plaintiff's 155 MOTIONS IN LIMINE ; denying in part, striking in part and deferring in part defendant's 154 MOTIONS IN LIMINE ; deferring to Pretrial Conference defendant's 158 MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 KIRTI TIWARI, et al., 7 8 9 10 Plaintiffs, v. C17-242 TSZ JAMES MATTIS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense, in his official capacity, 11 MINUTE ORDER Defendant. 12 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 13 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: (1) Plaintiffs’ motion in limine, docket no. 155, is DENIED in part and DEFERRED in part as follows. To the extent that plaintiffs seek to exclude certain Department of Defense (“DoD”) witnesses from testifying, their motion in limine is 15 DENIED. Whether these DoD witnesses intend to or are attempting to provide expert opinions without having been properly and timely disclosed pursuant to Federal Rule of 16 Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) is DEFERRED to trial. 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (2) Defendant’s motions in limine, docket no. 154, are DENIED in part, STRICKEN in part, and DEFERRED in part as follows. (A) Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony by perpetuation deposition of plaintiffs Lieutenant Kirti Tiwari, Sergeant Raj Chettri, Sergeant Seung Yoon Yang, and Specialist Amandeep Singh is DEFERRED to the Pretrial Conference. (B)(i) Defendant’s motion to exclude the deposition testimony of DoD witness Latrice McSwain is DENIED. If plaintiffs wish to call Ms. McSwain in their case-in-chief, the DoD shall make her available for such purpose. If Ms. McSwain appears to testify in plaintiffs’ case-in-chief, defendant shall contemporaneously conduct its examination of her so that she does not have to MINUTE ORDER - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 return at a later time during trial. If Ms. McSwain does not appear to testify in plaintiffs’ case-in-chief, either side may use her deposition as permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32. (B)(ii) Defendant’s motion to exclude the deposition testimony of DoD witnesses Mary Dandridge (located at Fort Stewart, Georgia), Curtis Kingsland (located at DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility, Maryland), and Terrill White (located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina) is DENIED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(1) & (4)(B). Any objections to specific questions and/or answers are deferred to trial. 9 (C) Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Naomi Verdugo, Ph.D. is DENIED in part and DEFERRED in part. Dr. Verdugo will be permitted to testify at trial. Defendant’s objections concerning possible bias or undue influence by plaintiffs’ counsel during the course of Dr. Verdugo’s deposition go to the weight, not the admissibility, of Dr. Verdugo’s testimony. The appropriate scope of Dr. Verdugo’s testimony is DEFERRED to the Pretrial Conference. 10 (D) Defendant’s motion to require plaintiffs to revise their witness list is STRICKEN as moot. 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 (3) Defendant’s motion in limine, docket no. 158, is DEFERRED to the Pretrial Conference. Defendant’s motion seeks to exclude the testimony of Margaret Stock on the grounds that she is married to and the law partner of plaintiffs’ counsel Neil O’Donnell. The Court will hear oral argument at the Pretrial Conference concerning this motion. Counsel shall be prepared to address (i) whether Ms. Stock will be called to testify as a fact witness or an expert; (ii) whether the appropriate remedy for the situation at issue is disqualification of Mr. O’Donnell or exclusion of Ms. Stock; Joseph Shaeffer of MacDonald Hoague & Bayless has been local counsel for plaintiffs since the inception of this case, and he is expected to “be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof” in the event that Mr. O’Donnell and his firm are disqualified; see Local Civil Rule 83.1(d)(2); and (iii) whether the Court has the inherent authority to exclude Ms. Stock as an expert witness on public policy grounds given her involvement in this and other similar or related cases; see Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 2014 WL 10894452 at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2014). 18 (4) 19 record. 20 The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of Dated this 6th day of November, 2018. 21 William M. McCool Clerk 22 s/Karen Dews Deputy Clerk 23 MINUTE ORDER - 2

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?