Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02163/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02163-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EASA BEGZAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENNETH HEDRICK and KEITH

BRYAN,

Defendants.

NO. C03-2163 TEH 

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO

AMEND WITNESS LIST AND

ORDER RE: TRIAL

PREPARATION

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s request to add Dr. Roya Sakhai to the witness list

and Defendants’ opposition thereto. The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has

failed to present good cause to re-open discovery, or to allow a previously undisclosed

witness to testify, on the eve of trial. Trial is set to begin in this case on Tuesday,

September 20, 2005, one week from the date of Plaintiff’s request. Although Plaintiff

speculates that Defendants would choose not to depose Dr. Sakhai, due process would

require allowing Defendants the opportunity to depose a new witness. Moreover, Plaintiff

had ample opportunity to begin seeing a mental health professional, or to retain expert

testimony from such an individual, prior to the close of discovery. This is particularly true

given that discovery did not close until earlier this year, and the events underlying this

lawsuit occurred in 2002. Accordingly, with good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s request is

DENIED.

In addition, to alleviate the concerns Defendants expressed in their September 14,

2005 letter regarding Plaintiff’s request to bring a projector screen for use at trial, the Court

explains that its order granting Plaintiff’s request simply allows Plaintiff to bring the

Case 3:03-cv-02163-TEH Document 245 Filed 09/15/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff’s request only included a “screen for the projector.” Presumably, Plaintiff

will also need a projector. If Plaintiff wishes to bring a projector into the courtroom, he must

submit an appropriate proposed order for the Court’s review and signature.

2

equipment into the courtroom.1 It does not in any way mean that Plaintiff will be allowed to

present images or display exhibits that were not timely lodged with this Court and provided

to Defendants. To ensure that Plaintiff does not present any inadmissible testimony or

exhibits, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer over the images

that Plaintiff intends to project onto the screen at trial. Any disputes shall be raised with the

Court prior to jury selection on Tuesday, September 20, 2005. 

Finally, the parties are advised that the Court does not anticipate taking the full trial

day on September 20 to select the jury. Consequently, the parties shall be prepared to give

opening statements following jury selection, and Plaintiff shall be prepared to put on his first

witnesses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 09/15/05 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:03-cv-02163-TEH Document 245 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 2