Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00345/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00345-16/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN R. EDWARDS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

R. BRATTON and

D. CABRAL,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-00345-EPG-PC

ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC

HEARING HELD ON APRIL 5, 2016

ORDER ADDRESSING MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE AND OTHER PENDING

MOTIONS

(ECF Nos. 97, 100, 103, 104, 107, 112, 113.)

Jury Trial: May 3, 2016 at 8:30 a.m.

 Courtroom 10 (EPG)

 

I. BACKGROUND

This civil rights action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, proceeds on the initial 

Complaint filed pro se by state prisoner Steven R. Edwards (“Plaintiff”) on March 11, 2013,

against defendants R. Bratton (LVN) and D. Cabral (Psychiatric Technician) (collectively, 

“Defendants”), for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (ECF No. 

1.) This case is presently set for trial on May 3, 2016 at 8:30 a.m.

 

1On June 12, 2013 and June 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed notices of his willingness to proceed only 

against defendants Bratton, Cabral, Escorto, and Pascual, for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. (ECF 

Nos. 9, 11.) On July 17, 2015, summary judgment was granted to defendants Escorto and Pascual. (ECF No. 73.) 

On March 17, 2016, the Court’s pretrial order dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action. (ECF 

No. 102 at 2 n.1.) Therefore, this case now proceeds only against defendants Bratton and Cabral for deliberate 

indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs. 

Case 1:13-cv-00345-EPG Document 123 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 12
2

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

The parties to this action have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c). (ECF Nos. 77, 83.) Therefore, Magistrate Judge Erica P. 

Grosjean shall conduct any and all further proceedings in the case, including trial and entry of 

final judgment.

II. APRIL 5, 2016 TELEPHONIC MOTIONS IN LIMINE HEARING

On April 5, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., a telephonic hearing was held before Magistrate Judge 

Erica P. Grosjean to hear the parties’ motions in limine and other pending motions.

2

 Plaintiff 

appeared telephonically on his own behalf, and Deputy California Attorney General R. 

Lawrence Bragg appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendants. 

A. Defendants’ Motions In Limine

1. Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses

Defendants seek to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witnesses at trial because Plaintiff has not 

complied with Rule 26(a)(2), which requires disclosure of expert witnesses, and it is too late for 

him to do so. In the alternative, Defendants request the Court to limit testimony of any of 

Plaintiff’s experts to opinions shown to have been formed in the course of their treatment of

Plaintiff.

Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party to “disclose to the 

other parties the identity of any [expert] witness it may use at trial to present evidence” and 

“must make these disclosures at the times and in the sequence that the court orders [or] absent a 

stipulation or a court order, . . at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be 

ready for trial.” Fed. R. Civ P. 26(a)(2)(A),(D). 

Defendants’ motion in limine is granted. Here, Plaintiff listed only three witnesses in 

his pretrial statement, inmates Hussein Ali, Van-Albert Siegrist, and Thomas Fouquet, none 

which are expert witnesses. Plaintiff conceded that he that he did not disclose any expert 

 

2

On February 22, 2016, March 18, 2016, and March 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions in limine

(ECF Nos. 97, 103, 113), and on March 9, 2016, Defendants filed motions in limine (ECF No. 100). On March 

18, 2016, and March 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions for the issuance of a subpoena compelling Dr. Berard’s 

attendance at trial. (ECF Nos. 104, 112.) On March 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of a 

video recording. (ECF No. 107.) 

Case 1:13-cv-00345-EPG Document 123 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 12
3

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

witnesses but says that he did ask the Court to appoint an impartial expert for both parties to 

use. Plaintiff wants Dr. Berard to be a witness, but only for what he saw, did, and prescribed 

for Plaintiff.

Given the Plaintiff did not disclose any expert witnesses under Rule 26(a)(2), this 

motion in limine is granted. Plaintiff’s request for a Court-appointed expert to be used by all 

parties is denied as untimely, and because an expert is not necessary to ensure accurate 

factfinding by the Court on the issues in this case, which concern whether Defendants were 

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs and whether Plaintiff was injured. 

2. Motion Limiting Plaintiff’s Testimony

Defendants seek to preclude testimony by Plaintiff under Rule 701 about his opinions or 

inferences referring to causation, diagnosis, or the nature and extent of his injuries. 

Defendants also seek to preclude testimony by Plaintiff offering opinions or inferences based 

on any medical records.

Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:

If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of 

an opinion is limited to one that is:

(a) rationally based on the witness's perception;

(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or to 

determining a fact in issue; and

(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized 

knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

Fed. R. Evid. 701.

Defendants’ motion in limine is granted in part and denied in part. The Court shall

determine the admissibility of Plaintiff’s medical testimony at trial on a question by question 

basis, evaluated under Rule 701. Plaintiff may testify about what he felt, the extent of any 

injuries, and any opinions about causation based on his personal observation and perception. 

However, Plaintiff is not permitted to give scientific or medical opinions or interpret medical 

records that require expert testimony or specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. 

Plaintiff may testify about the causation of injuries as shown by what happened to him after the 

Case 1:13-cv-00345-EPG Document 123 Filed 04/20/16 Page 3 of 12
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

incident. In closing arguments, Plaintiff may discuss his injuries as they relate to his request 

for damages. Plaintiff is permitted to cross-examine Defendants’ expert witness. Plaintiff may 

discuss past incidents when he was sprayed with pepper spray, and what treatment he received

for the effects of pepper spray. This does not open up the question of why Plaintiff was pepper 

sprayed in the past. Plaintiff is not precluded from making an argument that delay caused his 

eye injuries.

3. Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Presentation of Medical Records

Defendants object to Plaintiff submitting his medical records as evidence, on grounds of 

lack of foundation, irrelevance, and inadmissible hearsay. Defendants argue that Plaintiff 

cannot provide a proper foundation because he lacks personal knowledge of the content of the 

records, and if he cannot lay a foundation, the evidence is not relevant to the issues in the case. 

Defendants also argue that the medical records contain medical opinions, which can only be 

offered by a medical expert. In addition, Defendants argue that reading the medical records 

will confuse the jury, who will render conclusions not based on scientific knowledge or fact.

Plaintiff asserts that he intends the medical records to speak only to where he was, who 

he saw, on what day, what was done, and what he received. Plaintiff argues that the jury 

should be allowed to see the medical records and ask their own questions.

The Court overruled Defendants’ lack of foundation objection. Plaintiff may testify 

about his medical records with the foundation that they are his medical records, and the records 

themselves concern information given through medical assessment. The Court also overruled 

Defendants’ objections on the basis of relevance and hearsay, ruling that the medical records 

fall under the hearsay exception in Rule 803(6) for records of regularly conducted activity. 

4. Motion to Limit Questions Concerning Personnel Matters, Prior 

Complaints About Job Performance, and Prior Disciplinary Issues 

Related to Defendants

Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from questioning them about any matters in their 

personnel records, because California law provides for confidentiality of peace officer 

personnel records. Defendants argue that while federal law is controlling, state law is relevant 

where one of the elements of the federal claim is that the actor was acting under color of state 

Case 1:13-cv-00345-EPG Document 123 Filed 04/20/16 Page 4 of 12
5

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

law, and the official information privilege used in federal court is consistent with California

statutes. Defendants also argue that other inmates’ complaints against Defendants are 

irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and character evidence is not admissible, would be misleading, 

and would be unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.

Plaintiff argues that medical personnel do not have the same privileges as peace 

officers, and Plaintiff asserts that he is not seeking personal information. Plaintiff only seeks to 

ask whether allegations of medical claims have ever been filed against them.

Rule 404(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:

Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to 

prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular 

occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

This motion in limine is granted. Under Rule 404(b), Plaintiff may not use evidence of 

past bad acts by Defendants to prove that those past acts show that Defendants are more likely 

to act in the same way. 

5. Motion to Preclude Evidence of Defendants’ Financial Condition 

Until and Unless the Trier of Fact Determines that Punitive 

Damages are Appropriate

Defendants seek to bifurcate the trial on the issue of punitive damages, and assert that 

under federal law, Defendants bear the burden of proving financial worth when arguing in 

mitigation of damages. Defendants argue that it is unfair to require Defendants to choose 

between divulging their personal assets to an inmate and properly defending themselves. 

Defendants argue that they should be permitted to reserve testimony as to their financial worth 

until after any entitlement to punitive damages has been established.

Plaintiff asserts that the matter of bifurcation was already decided at the February 18, 

2016 hearing on Judge Grosjean.3

This motion in limine is granted. The trial shall be bifurcated on the issue of the amount 

of punitive damages, if any. Evidence of Defendants’ financial condition in the initial part of 

 

3

In fact, the Court made a tentative ruling at the February 18, 2016 hearing to separate the 

punitive damages phase from the trial, and Defendants were advised to bring this issue in a motion in limine. 

(ECF No. 102 at 23 ¶XV.)

Case 1:13-cv-00345-EPG Document 123 Filed 04/20/16 Page 5 of 12
6

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

the trial is not relevant and would be more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403. The 

amount of punitive damages, if any, is a question for the second part of the trial.

B. Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine

1. Motion to Suppress Evidence of Circumstances of Plaintiff’s 

Incarceration

Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence of circumstances of his incarceration, arguing that 

his criminal record has no relevance to this Court proceeding, lacks foundation, is unfairly 

prejudicial, and lacks any probative value. Such evidence includes abstracts of judgment 

representing Plaintiff’s and his inmate witnesses’ felony convictions and sentences, crime 

incident reports, 115 Rules Violation Reports, transcripts of Plaintiff’s deposition and 

discovery responses provided in Plaintiff’s other case 1:13-cv-1013-SAB-PC (Edwards v. 

Desfosses), referral of the incident to the District Attorney’s office on December 14, 2012, and 

photos of Building A-2 where the staff assault incident occurred.

Defendants argue that under Rule 609, evidence of felony convictions are admissible to 

attack a witness’s character for truthfulness. This evidence includes the essential facts of the 

conviction, such as the statutory name of each offense, the date of conviction, and the sentence 

imposed. Defendants assert that they do not plan to present evidence of the circumstances of 

the crimes.

With respect to the incident report Plaintiff seeks to exclude, Defendants assert that it 

contains a statement from C/O Desfosses, whom Plaintiff and Defendants have both listed as a 

potential witness. Also the report is relevant to explain the circumstances of LVN Bratton’s 

examination of Plaintiff and to rebut Plaintiff’s claims that the video interview on July 17, 2012 

is false. Furthermore, the RVR contains a statement attributed to Plaintiff concerning the July 

17, 2012 incident and could be used for impeachment purposes.

Defendants state that they do not intend to delve into the details of commitment 

offenses or the referral of the incident to the Fresno County District Attorney. However, they 

argue that they are entitled to use Plaintiff’s discovery responses and deposition transcript to 

///

Case 1:13-cv-00345-EPG Document 123 Filed 04/20/16 Page 6 of 12
7

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

show inconsistencies, and the issues in Plaintiff’s other case, 1:13-cv-1013-SAB-PC (Edwards 

v. Desfosses), overlap with the issues in this case.

Defendants state that they do not intend to introduce photographs of Building A-2,

where the alleged assault took place, and therefore Plaintiff’s motion in limine as to the photos 

should be denied as moot.

Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides, in part:

(a) In General. The following rules apply to attacking a 

witness’s character for truthfulness by evidence of a 

criminal conviction:

(1) for a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was 

punishable by death or by imprisonment for more 

than one year, the evidence:

(A) must be admitted, subject to Rule 403, in a 

civil case or in a criminal case in which the 

witness is not a defendant; and

(B) must be admitted in a criminal case in 

which the witness is a defendant, if the 

probative value of the evidence outweighs 

its prejudicial effect to that defendant; and

(2) for any crime regardless of the punishment, the 

evidence must be admitted if the court can readily 

determine that establishing the elements of the 

crime required proving — or the witness’s 

admitting — a dishonest act or false statement.

(b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This 

subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed 

since the witness’s conviction or release from 

confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the 

conviction is admissible only if:

(1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and 

circumstances, substantially outweighs its 

prejudicial effect; and

(2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable 

written notice of the intent to use it so that the 

party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.

This motion in limine is granted in part and denied in part. The Court shall allow 

Defendants to introduce evidence of the fact that Plaintiff had one or more felony convictions 

///

Case 1:13-cv-00345-EPG Document 123 Filed 04/20/16 Page 7 of 12
8

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

in the past ten years. However, evidence of the particular crimes for which Plaintiff was 

convicted is not allowed, as this evidence is more prejudicial than probative.

With respect to Rules Violation Reports, the Court found that they are generally 

excluded as evidence because they are an opinion based on a proceeding and are not evidence 

from a percipient witness, and they are also hearsay. Moreover, making conclusions about 

what happened and who was to blame to the extent relevant is the province of the jury.

Defendants argued that there are portions of the report that fall under hearsay 

objections, such as for impeachment or to refresh a recollection. The Court ruled that it will 

reserve its ruling on such limited exceptions until trial on a question by question basis; 

however, the parties are cautioned not to refer to the Rules Violation Report until further ruling 

on a limited basis.

2. Motion to Add Evidence Against the Defendants

Plaintiff requests the Court to compel Defendants to turn over the video tape or 

recording of the cameras pointed directly at the A-Yard program office at PVSP on July 17, 

2012. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not allowed him to view the video, which would 

prove that defendant Bratton came and went from the office but not at the time reported by 

Bratton.

Plaintiff also brings a motion in limine requesting that the video be presented at trial (or 

before trial), so Plaintiff can determine if it is a true and authentic version. Plaintiff argues that 

Defendants were required to preserve the video recordings.

Defendants argue that the video recordings of the A-Yard program office sought by 

Plaintiff never existed, and to the extent Plaintiff’s motion is a motion to compel, it is untimely. 

Defendants assert there were no video cameras located in areas to capture recordings of the AYard program office on July 17, 2012.

The Court denied both Plaintiff’s motion to compel and related motion in limine, based 

on Defendants’ assertion under oath that the A-Yard video sought by Plaintiff does not exist. 

However, Defendants agreed to provide authenticated copies of existing video 

recordings made of Plaintiff from July 17, 2012 to August 21, 2012. Defendants shall provide 

Case 1:13-cv-00345-EPG Document 123 Filed 04/20/16 Page 8 of 12
9

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

copies to the Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison, where Plaintiff is incarcerated, 

for Plaintiff’s viewing.

3. Motion to Exclude Irrelevant Testimony of Defendant LVN Bratton

Plaintiff moves to exclude evidence of the telephone call that LVN Bratton made to RN 

Lewis on July 17, 2012, on the ground that there is no evidence that she did or did not make the 

call. Plaintiff argues that RN Lewis is the only one who should testify to the phone call, and 

that LVN Bratton should not be allowed to testify to what RN Lewis told her, because it is 

hearsay.

Defendants argue that LVN Bratton’s testimony about her phone call to RN Lewis is 

not hearsay, because it is relevant to LVN Bratton’s motives and state of mind when she 

encountered Plaintiff, which is relevant to the section 1983 standard that violation of the Eighth

Amendment requires a prison official to show deliberate indifference. Defendants argue that 

LVN Bratton’s statement is offered to demonstrate that it was made, rather than for the truth of 

the matter, and so is not hearsay.

The Court ruled that LVN Bratton is allowed to testify about what she did, even if there 

is no corroborating evidence, and Plaintiff may cross-examine her. The Court held that 

testimony about the telephone call is not hearsay, but falls under the hearsay exception in Rule 

801(d)(1), which provides:

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the 

following conditions is not hearsay:

(1) A Declarant-Witness's Prior Statement. The declarant 

testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior 

statement, and the statement:

(A) is inconsistent with the declarant's testimony and 

was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, 

hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;

(B) is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is 

offered:

(i) to rebut an express or implied charge that 

the declarant recently fabricated it or acted 

from a recent improper influence or motive 

in so testifying; or

Case 1:13-cv-00345-EPG Document 123 Filed 04/20/16 Page 9 of 12
10

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

(ii) to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as 

a witness when attacked on another 

ground; or

(C) identifies a person as someone the declarant 

perceived earlier.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1). Thus, Plaintiff’s motion in limine is denied. 

Defendants questioned whether RN Lewis may be a witness at trial. The Court allowed 

it and also allowed Defendants to amend their witness list to include RN Lewis.

4. Plaintiff Seeks to Exclude Testimony and Medical Opinions as to 

Medical Diagnosis by Defendants’ Expert Witness

Plaintiff argues that Dr. Barnett cannot look at a piece of paper from another physician 

and say why or why not the other physician prescribed medication, and cannot testify to what 

Dr. Wilson or Dr. Berard saw. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Barnett has no experience as an 

ophthalmologist and cannot testify about Plaintiff’s injuries, how they occurred, or the effects

on Plaintiff, nor does Dr. Barnett have expertise in pepper spray. Plaintiff also argues that Dr. 

Barnett will use his testimony to mislead the jury at trial.

Defendants argue that Dr. Barnett’s testimony is admissible because he is a licensed 

physician with more than thirty years’ experience in Family Medicine, Urgent Care, and 

Emergency Medicine. Dr. Barnett will testify that he has more than seven years of experience 

in providing healthcare for inmates incarcerated by CDCR, including inmates exposed to 

pepper spray and patients with eye complaints. Defendants argue that Dr. Barnett clearly 

possesses specialized knowledge and experience beyond the average layperson concerning the 

treatment of eye conditions including exposure to pepper spray, and is qualified as an expert in 

this field under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Defendants argue that Dr. Barnett 

is entitled to review Plaintiff’s medical file, interpret Plaintiff’s medical records, and testify 

accordingly.

The Court ruled that Defendants’ expert witness Dr. Barnett is allowed to testify and 

shall offer evidence of his expertise at trial, where the Court will determine if his medical 

training allows him to testify about pepper spray. Thus, this motion is resolved. 

///

Case 1:13-cv-00345-EPG Document 123 Filed 04/20/16 Page 10 of 12
11

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

5. Plaintiff’s Request for Issuance of Subpoena to Compel Dr. Berard 

to Appear as a Witness and Testify at Trial on Plaintiff’s Behalf

Plaintiff requests that Dr. Berard testify about his treatment of Plaintiff’s eye problems 

relevant to this case. Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Berard is an ophthalmologist, is aware that 

Plaintiff has glaucoma, and can explain the effects that pepper spray would have on a person 

with Plaintiff’s condition.

The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for issuance of a subpoena, based on Plaintiff’s 

testimony that he cannot afford to pay the witness fees required to subpoena Dr. Berard to 

testify at trial. 

C. Other Issues

1. Depositions and Discovery Responses From Plaintiff’s Other Case

Under Rule 801(d)(2), the Court ruled that evidence from Plaintiff’s other case in this 

court, 1:13-cv-0103-SAB-PC (Edwards v. Desfosses), shall not be allowed except under 

limited exceptions. Rule 801(d)(2) provides:

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following 

conditions is not hearsay: 

. . . 

(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an 

opposing party and:

(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;

(B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;

(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a 

statement on the subject;

(D) was made by the party's agent or employee on a matter within the 

scope of that relationship and while it existed; or

(E) was made by the party's coconspirator during and in furtherance 

of the conspiracy.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). The Court held that relevance will be strictly construed. No questions 

about testimony from Plaintiff’s other trial are permitted. The parties may not divulge 

information about Plaintiff’s other trial or reveal that Plaintiff lost the other trial, which is not 

relevant and would be prejudicial to Plaintiff. Statements made by opposing parties in 

Case 1:13-cv-00345-EPG Document 123 Filed 04/20/16 Page 11 of 12
12

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

deposition testimony and discovery responses in Plaintiff’s other case may be admissible, to the 

extent that they are relevant to this case under Rule 801(d)(2). Plaintiff may not offer details or 

assign blame based on his other case, but may generally refer to an incident that led to him 

being pepper-sprayed.

2. Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits

Plaintiff seeks to add more trial exhibits. The Court allowed Plaintiff to submit a 

request to the Court, with the proposed exhibits attached for the Court’s review or with 

explanation that Defendants are already in possession of them. To be considered by the Court, 

such request must be submitted promptly after the April 5, 2016 hearing.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties’ motions in limine, and other pending motions and requests, are 

RESOLVED by this order as discussed above; and

2. This case is set for jury trial on May 3, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. before Magistrate 

Judge Erica P. Grosjean.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00345-EPG Document 123 Filed 04/20/16 Page 12 of 12