Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02518/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02518-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2518 DAD P

vs.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, currently a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to have all further proceedings before

the undersigned. By this order, the case will be set for trial and the court will resolve pending

evidentiary matters.

The pretrial order was filed on March 6, 2008 and the parties were informed that

objections must be filed within fifteen days from the date of the order, or the order would

become final without further order of the court. Defendants filed objections on March 21, 2008,

objecting to any obligation on their part to facilitate the execution of a writ of habeas corpus ad

testificandum to obtain plaintiff’s attendance at trial. At the trial confirmation hearing on April

1, 2008, District Judge Frank C. Damrell explained that the court would issue the writ for

Case 2:03-cv-02518-DAD Document 135 Filed 05/02/08 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

 Defendants contend that exhibits numbered 22, 27, and 29 through 53 are new exhibits 1

which were not included in the pretrial order. Those exhibits are described by plaintiff as

follows:

22. Plaintiff’s letter to Lt. Trang To, dated 8/7/03

27. Internal Affairs letter from Lt. Tracy Petrie, dated 9/19/04

29. Internal Affairs’ findings and recommendations, 03-1A-67,

dated 10/1/03

30. Internal Affairs’ case summary, dated 9/9/04

31. Work/complaint history of Stephen Dickerson

32. Work/complaint history of Sgt. Zwolinski

33. Internal Affairs letter from Lt. Trang To, dated 7/7/03

34. Internal Affairs interview of plaintiff, dated 7/29/03

35. Internal Affairs interview of inmate Ricky Lawson, dated

8/11/03 

36. Internal Affairs interview of inmate Maurice Kenney, dated

9/8/03 

37. Internal Affairs interview of Deputy Bacoch, dated 7/30/03

38. Internal Affairs interview of Deputy Douglas, dated 8/11/03

39. Internal Affairs interview of Deputy Dickerson, dated 8/12/03

40. Internal Affairs interview of Sgt. Zwolinski, dated 8/13/03

41. Internal Affairs interview of Deputy Pai, dated 8/1/103

42. Internal Affairs interview of Deputy Gregory, dated 8/11/03

43. Internal Affairs interview of Deputy Berhalter, dated 8/11/03

44. Internal Affairs interview of Sgt. Pittack, dated 8/5/03

45. Internal Affairs interview of Deputy Maurer, dated 8/11/03

46. 5 East log book dated May 11, 2003 through May 12, 2003

47. A-shift work roster dated May 11, 2003

48. Internal Affairs interview of inmate Branko Majsteoric, dated

9/8/03

49. Internal Affairs interview of Deputy Deaux, dated 8/11/03

50. Internal Affairs interview of Deputy Thompson, dated 8/11/03

51. Internal Affairs interview of Deputy Glaser, dated 8/11/03

52. Joy Mason-Johnson, M.D. Inc., Radiology report, dated 6/9/06

53. Neurological surgery report, dated 1/31/08

2

plaintiff’s attendance and that no assistance by defendants was anticipated. Therefore, no

modification of the pretrial order was ordered. The undersigned deems the pretrial order, filed on

March 6, 2008, as the final pretrial order.

No timely objections to the pretrial order were filed by plaintiff; however, on

March 26, 2008, plaintiff filed a document titled, “Notice Of Motion and Motion To Lodge

Exhibits 1 thru 52, And Additional Exhibit 53, Pursuant to Pretrial Order On March 6, 2008.”1

Defendants have filed an objection to plaintiff’s motion and plaintiff has filed a reply. To the

Case 2:03-cv-02518-DAD Document 135 Filed 05/02/08 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

 Nevertheless, if he wishes to pursue the matter plaintiff should have copies of any 2

exhibit that he seeks to use at trial with him on the first day of trial and be prepared to argue why

he should be excused from complying with the requirements set forth in the pretrial order with

respect to exhibits. 

3

extent that plaintiff seeks to add exhibits to his list of exhibits set out in the pretrial order,

plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Pursuant to Local Rule 16-281(b)(11), plaintiff was required to

provide in his pretrial statement a list of documents or exhibits that he expected to offer at trial. 

The court liberally construed plaintiff’s earlier motion, styled “Motion To Lodge Exhibits B thru

I,” filed on January 29, 2008, as plaintiff’s list of trial exhibits. However, the court will not

continue to accept plaintiff’s late submissions. In addition, plaintiff’s motion requires the court

to scrutinize a list of fifty-three exhibits which mixes exhibits already listed in the pretrial order,

as well as, exhibits plaintiff now seeks to add. The court will not do so. Therefore, plaintiff’s

motion to lodge Exhibits 1 thru 53, will be denied.2

On March 31, 2008, plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice Of Motion And

Objection To Defendent’s [sic] Witness List/Exhibits, Plaintiff’s Criminal Record And

Judgments.” In this regard, the defendants had listed themselves and four others as witnesses in

their pretrial statement. Each defendant and each of the other witness were also identified by the

defendants as expert witnesses. Plaintiff argues that defendants failed to comply with Rule

26(a)(2)(B) which requires a written report with specific information regarding expert witnesses. 

Plaintiff also requests a Daubert hearing to determine the expert witness’ qualifications and

scope of the expert’s testimony. At the trial confirmation hearing, defendants clarified that all of

their witnesses are in fact percipient witnesses. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion concerning

disclosures for expert witnesses will be denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4), Advisory

Committee's Note (1970 Amendment) (“It should be noted that the subdivision does not address

itself to the expert whose information was not acquired in preparation for trial but rather because

he was an actor or viewer with respect to transactions or occurrences that are part of the subject

Case 2:03-cv-02518-DAD Document 135 Filed 05/02/08 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

4

matter of the lawsuit. Such an expert should be treated as an ordinary witness.”).

As to plaintiff’s objections to the use of his criminal record and his deposition at

trial, his motion will be denied as premature and defective. Pursuant to the pretrial order,

plaintiff should file any motions in limine seven days prior to the trial. See Pretrial Order at 9.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The pretrial order, filed on March 6, 2008, is deemed the final pretrial order;

2. Plaintiff’s March 26, 2008 Motion To Lodge Exhibits 1 thru 52, And

Additional Exhibit 53, is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s March 31, 2008 motion objecting to defendants’ witness list and

use of plaintiff’s criminal record, is denied;

4. Trial is set for June 16, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned in

Courtroom 27; and

5. The parties shall refer to the pretrial order and Local Rules for deadlines to file

motions in limine, the submission of proposed voir dire and proposed jury instructions, and to

file trial briefs. 

DATED: May 1, 2008.

DAD:4

will2518.trial

 

 

Case 2:03-cv-02518-DAD Document 135 Filed 05/02/08 Page 4 of 4