Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00534/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00534-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

18-CV-534-CAB-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL DORADOR-MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORECIVIC INC.; DO CARINI,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-534-CAB-BGS

ORDER ON RENEWED MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

[Doc. No. 83]

The Court previously denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this 

case finding material facts in dispute. Essentially, plaintiff Manuel Dorador-Martinez 

alleges that defendant Detention Officer Carini assaulted him while the plaintiff was in the 

custody of defendant CoreCivic, Inc. In response to the plaintiff’s sworn statements that 

Officer Carini caused his alleged injuries, defendants produced evidence that Officer Carini 

was not working on the day the assault allegedly occurred, or the days immediately 

preceding the alleged date. Plaintiff contends that these records may be inaccurate, or he 

may have confused the exact date of the incident, but he is unequivocal that Officer Carini 

is the individual who assaulted him. The Court found this dispute precluded summary 

judgment in favor of the defendants and set the matter for trial.

Subsequently, plaintiff’s counsel notified the Court that Mr. Dorador having been 

Case 3:18-cv-00534-CAB-BGS Document 91 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-534-CAB-BGS

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

deported following a felony conviction in this judicial district, was denied a parole request 

made under 8 U.S.C § 1182(d)(5) to be allowed to return to the United States to testify at 

trial. Such denials are not appealable, and the plaintiff has provided no authority that the 

Court may overrule the discretionary exercise of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

authority in this regard. The Court therefore directed defendants to renew the motion for 

summary judgment and required plaintiff to present what evidence plaintiff could offer, 

absent his own testimony, that would both identify the defendant as the alleged assailant

and could competently be offered to contradict defendants’ evidence that Officer Carini 

was not on duty on the date of or near the alleged incident. Accordingly, defendants 

renewed their motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 83.] Plaintiff opposed [Doc. No. 

85] and defendants replied. [Doc. No. 90.]

Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court finds that plaintiff has 

proffered no admissible evidence that would contradict the defendants’ records regarding 

Officer Carini’s work schedule on and around the dates of the alleged assault. Further,

without the testimony of Mr. Dorador, there is no evidence that identifies Officer Carini as 

the alleged assailant. Consequently, unless Mr. Dorador testifies at trial, he cannot sustain 

his burden of proof to establish that Officer Carini assaulted him and caused his alleged 

injuries on or about the time at issue.

This however does not end the matter, as plaintiff requested in his opposition that he 

be permitted to testify pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a), allowing the 

Court to permit testimony by contemporaneous transmission from a different location for 

good cause in compelling circumstances. When a party’s testimony is essential to his 

complaint, but he is unable to appear in court, a trial court “must investigate reasonable 

alternatives” before dismissing the action. See Hernandez v. Whiting, 881 F.2d 768, 771 

(9th Cir. 1989) (it is necessary for the court to consider methods of bringing [the party] 

before the court, particularly when [the party’s] testimony is essential to his complaint).

Plaintiff’s request to testify by video transmission, pursuant to Rule 43, is granted 

and the renewed motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff will make the 

Case 3:18-cv-00534-CAB-BGS Document 91 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-534-CAB-BGS

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

necessary arrangements and pay the expenses for remote testimony. Defendants may 

submit a supplemental motion in limine no later than September 11, 2019, regarding any 

conditions or safeguards they propose as appropriate for the remote testimony.

The hearing scheduled for September 10, 2019 is hereby VACATED. The parties 

will file oppositions to the pending motions in limine (and defendant’s supplemental 

motion if filed) no later than September 18, 2019. Motions in limine will be heard on 

September 26, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. Trial is rescheduled for October 28, 2019, at 8:45 a.m.

through October 31, 2019.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00534-CAB-BGS Document 91 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3