Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00370/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00370-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims 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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Guadalupe Guerrero, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-00370-TUC-JAS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for leave to amend the final 

pretrial order (“PTO”). See Doc. 94. As discussed below, the motion is granted. 

 As relevant to Defendant’s current motion, the Court previously issued an Order 

that stated in part: “On page 47 of the PTO, it appears that the Government objects to 

paroling in several of Plaintiff’s witnesses as they were not made sufficiently available 

for deposition during discovery. However, IT IS ORDERED that the Government may 

still depose these witnesses prior to trial, and Plaintiff shall make these witnesses 

available for depositions (if the Government still wants to depose them) at the Douglas 

Port of Entry at least 30 days before trial. The Government’s objection is overruled, and 

these witnesses shall be paroled in for trial.” See Doc. 90. 

 In the course of preparing for these depositions, Defendant discovered new 

evidence which it seeks to add to the PTO. Plaintiff filed an opposition arguing in part 

that Defendant could have discovered this information earlier, and allowing such 

modification will unnecessarily add complications to the case and could cause delays. 

Case 4:12-cv-00370-JAS Document 100 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 A "district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 

litigation, and its decisions . . . will not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of 

discretion . . ." Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 

2002).1

 “A pretrial order is not an inexorable decree and may, under proper 

circumstances, be modified [to prevent manifest injustice]. . .” Mechmetals Corp. v. 

Telex Computer Products, Inc., 709 F.2d 1287, 1294 (9th Cir. 1983). The “proper 

treatment of the pre-trial order after entry requires an appropriate balance between 

firmness to preserve the essential integrity of the order, and adaptability to meet changed 

or newly discovered conditions or to respond to the special demands of justice.” Jeffries 

v. U.S., 477 F.2d 52, 55 (9th Cir. 1973); see also Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 

616 (9th Cir. 2012) (factors that are considered in modifying a final PTO include: “(1) the 

degree of prejudice or surprise to the defendants if the order is modified; (2) the ability of 

the defendants to cure any prejudice; (3) the impact of the modification on the orderly 

and efficient conduct of the case; and (4) any degree of willfulness or bad faith on the 

part of the party seeking the modification.”) 

 Based on the record before the Court, there does not appear to be any bad faith on 

the part of the Government. Rather, as the Court authorized the depositions referenced 

above, the Government began preparing for those depositions and discovered a new 

witness that had relevant information, and additional documents came to light that could 

also be relevant for trial. As soon as the Government became aware of the importance of 

this information, the Government informed Plaintiff and sought to modify the PTO. As 

to potential prejudice and the impact on the efficient conduct of the case, this appears to 

be minimal as Plaintiff has leave to depose the new witness before trial and shall have an 

opportunity to examine the additional documents before trial; trial is still nearly three 

months away. In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for leave to amend the PTO 

(Doc. 94) is granted; the following trial witnesses and exhibits will be added to 

 

1

 Unless otherwise noted by the Court, internal quotes and citations are omitted when quoting and citing cases throughout this Order. 

Case 4:12-cv-00370-JAS Document 100 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

Defendant’s disclosures: 

WITNESSES: 

1. Michael Presnall- U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 

EXHIBITS: 

1. Immigration A-Files, Criminal History Reports, and Biographical information of 

plaintiff and plaintiff’s identified Mexican national witnesses. 

 Dated this 30th day of April, 2015. 

Honorable James A. Soto 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:12-cv-00370-JAS Document 100 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 3