Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00873/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00873-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SHAWN GREGSON,

NO. CIV. S-04-00873

Plaintiff, WBS GGH

v. ORDER

MANTECA POLICE DEPARTMENT;

OFFICER DOTY, OFFICER MULLER,

OFFICER SCHULER, OFFICER 

PETERS, OFFICER RENFROE, each

individually and as a Manteca

Police Officer and DOES 1-100,

 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff moves ex parte for a continuance of the

trial date, scheduled to commence next Tuesday, and various other

sanctions against defendants, including leave to amend the

complaint. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.

First, in the factual basis for the motion, counsel

for plaintiff states that when he received the Pretrial Order of

Case 2:04-cv-00873-WBS-GGH Document 61 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

June 5, 2007, he was surprised by the disclosure of defense

exhibits G, H, and I, the video tapes which form the basis for

this motion. He should not have been surprised, because in

creating the list of exhibits in the Pretrial Order the court

merely copied the lists of exhibits contained in the parties’

Pretrial Statements. Defendants’ Pretrial Statement, disclosing

exhibits G, H, and I, was filed more than four months before the

Pretrial Conference, on February 2, 2007.

Plaintiff’s counsel appeared at the Pretrial

Conference on June 4, 2007, and said nothing about any surprise

resulting from the earlier disclosure of defendants’ exhibits. 

Further, the Pretrial Order contained a provision requiring that

any objections be filed and served within fifteen days, and that

if no objections were made within that time the Order would

become final. Plaintiff made no objections to the Pretrial Order

within that time, waiting instead until four court days before

the trial date to file the present motion.

Second, if plaintiff’s attorney did not know about the

tapes, plaintiff himself, as well as his parents, must have known

or had reason to know of their existence from the beginning. The

tapes are of interviews of the plaintiff, which plaintiff and his

parents have all testified that they knew were being videotaped.

Third, it is not clear that plaintiff’s counsel did

not receive the tapes in question as part of the initial

disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1). Defendants’ counsel

represents that he believes copies of the tapes were provided to

plaintiff’s previous attorney, Vittoria Bossi. Ms. Bossi says

she has “no personal recollection” of ever being in possession of

Case 2:04-cv-00873-WBS-GGH Document 61 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

the tapes and was unable to find them after an exhaustive search

of her files. However, in a letter dated July 13, 2004, defense

counsel expressly invited Ms. Bossi “to view the videotapes of

your client and his parents.” 

Third, even if plaintiff’s present attorney was not

previously aware of the tapes, he has certainly been aware for

over a year of the existence of the tapes, since they were

mentioned at the depositions taken on May 9, 2006, July 7, 2006,

and July 21, 2006. His argument that this does not excuse the

alleged failure to disclose them earlier is disingenuous. It may

not excuse a violation of Rule 26(a), if one did in fact occur,

but also doesn’t excuse waiting more than a year to request the

tapes or to complain about the failure to produce them. It also

doesn’t lend much support to plaintiff’s claim that the tapes

were not in fact disclosed earlier.

Fourth, one of the remedies available for a violation

of Rule 26(a)(1) is to exclude the evidence at trial. Yet,

plaintiff’s attorney has today expressly withdrawn that portion

of his motion in limine that moved to exclude the playing or

introduction of the video tapes. Obviously, therefore, the

purpose of the instant motion is no more than to gain a last

minute continuance of the trial date.

This case was initially set for trial to commence on

March 25, 2006. At the request of counsel, on February 6, 2007,

by a stipulation that was signed by plaintiff’s present attorney,

the trial date was continued to July 10, 2007. That date was

reaffirmed at a Pretrial Conference attended by plaintiff’s

present attorney on June 4, 2007, and memorialized in the

Case 2:04-cv-00873-WBS-GGH Document 61 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Pretrial Order, to which plaintiff’s present attorney assented,

on June 5, 2007. A panel of prospective jurors has been

summoned, and the court has blocked out the weeks of July 10-13

and July 24-27, for the trial of this case. It would be an

unnecessary hardship on the defendants and the court to continue

the trial as plaintiff requests.

For the same reasons, plaintiff has failed to show

good cause to amend the complaint at this stage of the

proceedings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s ex parte

motion for continuance of trial and/or leave to amend the

complaint be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

DATED: July 3, 2007

Case 2:04-cv-00873-WBS-GGH Document 61 Filed 07/03/07 Page 4 of 4