Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00786/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00786-18/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. STEGLINSKI,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00786-SAB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO EXCLUDE M. DAVIS AS A 

WITNESS

(ECF No. 90)

Plaintiff Gary Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendant S. Steglinski

for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The matter is set for jury trial before 

the undersigned on April 19, 2016, at 8:30 a.m.

On February 22, 2016, Defendant filed motions in limine. (ECF No. 89.) On March 1, 

2016, Defendant filed a motion to exclude M. Davis as a witness. (ECF No. 90.) To date, 

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion to exclude M. Davis as a witness.

On March 28, 2016, the Court held a telephonic motions in limine hearing, and counsel 

Arthur Mark III and Misha Igra appeared on behalf of Defendant and Plaintiff appeared pro se. 

The Court also addressed Defendant’s motion to exclude M. Davis as a witness. 

\ \ \

\ \ \

Case 1:12-cv-00786-SAB Document 95 Filed 03/28/16 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

I.

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to exclude Plaintiff’s witness, M. Davis, from testifying at trial because 

of Plaintiff’s failure to file a pretrial statement, failure to file his final witness list, and failure to 

provide the contact information for Mr. Davis. (ECF No. 90-1.) Defendant requests sanctions 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(C) provides that “the court may issue any just 

orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney...fails to 

obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” “In civil cases, a district court[] has broad discretion 

to exclude witnesses for failure to comply with pretrial orders.” Tinsley v. Lomax, 33 F.3d 59, 

1994 WL 441835, at *4 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 1994) (citing United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 

841 F.2d 317, 320-21 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. First Nat. Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 

886 n.5 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

Defendant correctly points out that Plaintiff did not file a pretrial statement in accordance 

with the Court’s September 15, 2015 trial scheduling order. On September 15, 2015, the Court 

issued a trial scheduling order that required Plaintiff to file his pretrial statement no later than 

January 1, 2016. (ECF No. 76.) Plaintiff did not file his pretrial statement by January 1, 2016. 

On January 14, 2016, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file his pretrial statement on 

or before January 20, 2016. (ECF No. 81.) This order warned: “[t]he failure to file a pretrial 

statement may result in precluding Plaintiff from presenting certain evidence and/or calling 

certain witnesses during trial.” (ECF No. 81.) Plaintiff did not file his pretrial statement by 

January 20, 2016. At the telephonic trial confirmation hearing on January 22, 2016, Plaintiff 

stated that he had mailed his pretrial statement on January 20, 2016. On February 16, 2016, the 

Court issued an amended pretrial order, which noted that the Court had not received Plaintiff’s 

pretrial statement and stated: “[p]laintiff is forewarned that his continued failure to file his 

documents by the court ordered deadlines will result in his documents not being considered by 

the Court or the jury.” (ECF No. 87.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed his pretrial statement.

In the February 16, 2016 amended pretrial order, the Court listed Plaintiff and Michael 

Case 1:12-cv-00786-SAB Document 95 Filed 03/28/16 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

Davis as Plaintiff’s witnesses. The Court noted:

During the pretrial conference, Plaintiff indicated that he will be

calling Michael Davis, who is a nonincarcerated witness. Plaintiff

indicated that Mr. Davis is coming voluntarily and he did not

subpoena him. Plaintiff indicated that he would provide Mr.

Davis’s phone number. However, as of this date, the Court has not

received Plaintiff’s pretrial statement.

 

(ECF No. 87 at 12 at n.3.) 

The Court’s February 8, 2016 pretrial order and the Court’s February 16, 2016 amended 

pretrial order directed “each party [to] file and serve a final witness list, including the name of 

each witness and omitting witnesses which the parties no longer intend to call” by February 16, 

2016. (ECF Nos. 84, 87.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed his final witness list. 

Defendant also argues that Mr. Davis should be excluded because Plaintiff has not 

provided the contact information for Mr. Davis as ordered during the trial confirmation hearing 

and as required by Local Rule 281(b)(10). Local Rule 281(b) provides in pertinent part:

(b) Form, Contents. The pretrial statement shall state the name of 

the party or parties on whose behalf it is presented and set forth the 

nature of the action and the following matters, under the following 

captions and in the following order: 

(10) Witnesses. A list (names and addresses) of all prospective

witnesses, whether offered in person or by deposition or

interrogatory, designating those who are expert witnesses. Only

witnesses so listed will be permitted to testify at the trial, except as

may be otherwise provided in the pretrial order.

Defendant argues that he has no way of contacting Mr. Davis, because Mr. Davis has 

been discharged from parole and Plaintiff has not provided any contact information for Mr. 

Davis. Defendant asserts that this prejudices his ability to defend this lawsuit. At the March 28, 

2016 telephonic hearing, Plaintiff provided two telephone numbers and the address for Mr. 

Davis. 

Although Plaintiff has not filed his pretrial statement or his final witness list, as ordered 

by the Court and required under Local Rule 281(b)(10), Plaintiff stated during the January 22, 

2016 trial confirmation hearing that he intended to call Mr. Davis as a witness. As of January 

22, 2016, Defendant was aware that Plaintiff intended to call Mr. Davis. The Court included Mr. 

Case 1:12-cv-00786-SAB Document 95 Filed 03/28/16 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

Davis as one of Plaintiff’s witnesses in the February 8, 2016 pretrial order and the February 16, 

2016 amended pretrial order. It is clear that Defendant is aware of who Mr. Davis is. As noted 

in the amended pretrial order, Defendant added Mr. Davis’s abstract of judgment and other 

relevant documents from Mr. Davis’s central file to the list of exhibits that Defendant expects to 

offer at trial. (ECF No. 87.) 

Defendant now has the contact information for Mr. Davis. When the Court balances the 

facts and circumstances of this case, the Court finds that Mr. Davis should not be excluded 

because of Plaintiff’s failure to file a pretrial statement, failure to file a final witness list, and 

delay in providing the contact information for Mr. Davis. Therefore, the Court denies 

Defendant’s motion to exclude Mr. Davis. 

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to exclude M. Davis 

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00786-SAB Document 95 Filed 03/28/16 Page 4 of 4