Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01625/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01625-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERICO HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01625-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONFERENCE (ECF 

No. 77)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF No. 76)

PRE-TRIAL ORDER 

Pre-trial Hearing: June 19, 2015 at 10:30 

a.m., in Courtroom 6 (MJS)

Exchange of Trial Exhibits Deadline: July 7, 

2015

Motions in Limine Deadline: July 21, 2015

Oppositions to Motions in Limine Deadline: 

July 28, 2015

Other Pre-trial Submissions Deadline: July 

21, 2015

Hearing on Motions in Limine (if needed): 

August 11, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6 

(MJS)

Jury Trial: August 11, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. in 

Courtroom 6 (MJS) (Two to Three Day Trial)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action filed October 9, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 17
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

against Defendants Hernandez, Zambrano, Clark, Rodriguez, and Martin on Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this federal civil rights action. 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3).

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the conduct allegedly occurred 

in this judicial district.

II. JURY TRIAL

Defendants have demanded a jury trial.

III. BRIEF SUMMARY OF PARTIES’ POSITIONS

Because many of the relevant facts are in dispute, the Court herein briefly 

summarizes its understanding of the parties’ respective positions.

Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by Defendants at Pleasant Valley State 

Prison (“PVSP”) on February 23, 2013. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, while he 

was in the dining hall eating breakfast, Defendant Hernandez ordered Plaintiff to uncuff 

his pant legs. While Plaintiff was doing so, Hernandez told Plaintiff to “hurry the fuck up.” 

Plaintiff responded, “How does that make you feel?” Hernandez was upset by this 

response and instructed Plaintiff to place his hands behind his back and to cuff-up. 

Hernandez then grabbed Plaintiff’s cuffed hands and shoved them upwards toward his 

back, causing Plaintiff to fold over at the waist and hit his forehead on concrete. 

Defendant Zambrano scratched Plaintiff’s face during the incident. Defendants Clark, 

Rodriguez, and Martin struck and kicked Plaintiff.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff turned on Defendant Hernandez as Hernandez 

was attempting to handcuff Plaintiff. Plaintiff struck Defendant Hernandez in the face and 

continued to assault him after Defendant Hernandez fell to the ground. Defendant

Zambrano responded by using reasonable force to get Plaintiff off of Defendant

Hernandez. Defendant Rodriguez responded to the incident and used reasonable force 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 17
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

to gain control of Plaintiff who was assaulting Defendant Hernandez. Defendant Clark

responded to the incident and used reasonable force to gain control of Plaintiff and apply

handcuffs. Defendant Martin responded to the incident but did not touch Plaintiff.

IV. UNDISPUTED FACTS

The Court believes the following facts are not in dispute and may be submitted to 

the jury as stipulated facts:

1. At all times relevant to the complaint, Plaintiff was a convicted felon in the 

custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(“CDCR”) at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”).

2. At all times relevant to the complaint, Defendants were employed by CDCR at 

PVSP and were acting under color of law.

3. On February 23, 2013, an incident occurred in the Facility A, Section B dining 

hall involving Plaintiff and Defendants Hernandez and Zambrano. Other staff, 

including Defendants Rodriguez, Clark, and Martin, responded to the incident.

4. During the incident, force was used against Plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff sustained injuries during the incident and was transferred to Coalinga 

Medical Center for evaluation.

6. Examination of Plaintiff in the Emergency Room revealed multiple abrasions 

and lacerations to his face and head.

7. Plaintiff had two scalp lacerations, requiring 7 staples and 3 staples, 

respectively.

8. X-rays and CT scans of Plaintiff’s head showed soft tissue swelling in the left 

frontal scalp and face, but no fracture.

9. Plaintiff was diagnosed with contusions of the scalp and face, laceration of the 

scalp, and strain of his neck and right 5th finger.

10.Plaintiff was returned to prison the same day.

11.The day following the incident, Plaintiff participated in a video-taped interview 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 3 of 17
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

regarding the use of force.

The parties have agreed to meet and confer to determine whether they are able to 

stipulate to additional facts regarding Plaintiff’s injuries and medical treatment. Defense 

counsel shall file any further stipulations with the Court on or before July 21, 2015.

V. DISPUTED FACTS

1. Whether Plaintiff initiated the physical altercation by striking Officer 

Hernandez;

2 Whether Officers Hernandez’s, Zambrano’s, Rodriguez’s, and/or Clark’s use of 

force against Plaintiff was reasonable and applied in a good faith effort to 

maintain or restore discipline;

3 Whether Defendant Martin used any force against Plaintiff; and

4 Whether Plaintiff suffered compensable injuries and, if so, the amount of 

compensation due.

VI. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

A. Plaintiff

Plaintiff’s only anticipated evidentiary issues involve ongoing discovery disputes.

B. Defendants

Defendants intend to object to:

1. Any evidence submitted by Plaintiff based upon or containing inadmissible 

hearsay, or evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent;

2. Any written statements by inmates whom Plaintiff claims are witnesses; and

3. Any opinion testimony from Plaintiff regarding any matters that call for medical 

expertise.

Defendants reserve their right to raise further objections upon the presentation of 

specific testimony or exhibits.

Defendants anticipate filing a motion in limine to preclude Plaintiff from testifying 

about any personnel actions relating to Defendants on the grounds such testimony is 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 4 of 17
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

hearsay, irrelevant, and prejudicial.

Defendants anticipate filing a motion in limine to preclude Plaintiff from testifying 

as to the significance and nature of Defendant Hernandez’s tattoo, because Plaintiff is 

not an expert in gang activity.

Defendants anticipate impeaching Plaintiff and any other incarcerated witness by 

presenting evidence of prior felony convictions.

VII. RELIEF SOUGHT

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000 against each 

Defendant and punitive damages in the amount of $20,000 against each Defendant. 

Defendants seek judgment in their favor and costs.

VIII. POINTS OF LAW

A. Excessive Force

The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment protects 

prisoners from the use of excessive physical force. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37-38 

(2010); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1992). To state an Eighth Amendment 

claim, a plaintiff must allege that the use of force was an “unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain.” Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 910 (9th Cir. 2001). The malicious 

and sadistic use of force to cause harm always violates contemporary standards of 

decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is evident. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9; 

see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth Amendment 

excessive force standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis injuries). 

However, not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of 

action.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9. “The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and 

unusual punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis 

uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the 

conscience of mankind.” Id. at 9-10.

Whether force used by prison officials was excessive is determined by inquiring if 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 5 of 17
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

6

the “force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6-7. The Court must 

look at the need for application of force; the relationship between that need and the 

amount of force applied; the extent of the injury inflicted; the extent of the threat to the 

safety of staff and inmates as reasonably perceived by prison officials; and any efforts 

made to temper the severity of the response. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321

(1976). The absence of significant injury alone is not dispositive of a claim of excessive 

force. Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 34. 

B. Qualified Immunity

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their 

conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 

reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Resolving a claim of qualified immunity requires courts to determine whether the facts 

alleged, when taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, violated a constitutional 

right, and if so, whether the right was clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 

201 (2001). While often beneficial to address in that order, courts have discretion to 

address the two-step inquiry in the order they deem most suitable under the 

circumstances. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).

“The principles of qualified immunity shield an officer from personal liability when 

an officer reasonably believes that his or her conduct complies with the law.” Pearson, 

555 U.S. at 244. Therefore, “[i]f the [defendant’s] mistake as to what the law requires is 

reasonable . . . the [defendant] is entitled to the immunity defense.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 

U.S. at 205. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who 

knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). 

C. Punitive Damages

Plaintiff has the burden of proving what, if any, punitive damages should be 

awarded by a preponderance of the evidence. Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 6 of 17
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

7

§ 5.5 (2008). The jury must find that Defendants’ conduct was “motivated by evil motive 

or intent, or . . . involve[d] reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights 

of others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1986). Acts or omissions which are 

malicious, wanton, or oppressive support an award of punitive damages. Dang v. Cross, 

422 F.3d 800, 807-08 (9th Cir. 2005).

IX. ABANDONED ISSUES

None.

X. WITNESSES

The following is a list of witnesses that the parties wish to call at trial. NO 

WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT 

TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS 

ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(10).

A. Plaintiff’s Requested Witnesses

Plaintiff intends to call the following witnesses at trial1:

1. Plaintiff

2. Inmate Barry Vance

3. Inmate Thayer Chris

4. Inmate Thomas Brennick

5. Correctional Officer A. Walker

6. Correctional Officer D. Fischer

B. Defendants’ Requested Witnesses 

1. Defendant G. Clark,

 

1

Plaintiff timely filed a motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses at trial. (ECF No. 78.) The 

Court granted Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 90), and will issue writs of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum 

prior to trial. For unincarcerated witnesses, the Court will not issue the requisite subpoenas unless Plaintiff 

pays the statutory witness fees of $110.73 for each witness. The deadline for such submission previously 

was set as July 1, 2015. (Id.) At the pretrial conference, the deadline was extended to July 8, 2015. 

Nonetheless, Plaintiff is encouraged to submit the money orders as soon as possible, to ensure the United 

States Marshal has sufficient time prior to trial to serve the subpoenas.

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 7 of 17
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

8

2. Defendant M. Hernandez,

3. Defendant J. Martin,

4. .Defendant R. Rodriguez,

5. Defendant C. Zambrano,

6. J. Goethe, Correctional Officer at PVSP,

7. H. Rodriguez, Correctional Officer at PVSP,

8. M. Stringer, Licensed Vocational Nurse at PVSP,

9. Will Adams, retained expert from Correctional Litigation Solutions in 

Bakersfield, California, and

10. Bruce Barnett, M.D., unretained expert and Chief Medical Officer of 

the California Correctional health Care Services.

XI. EXHIBITS

The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties expect to 

offer at trial. NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE 

ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS 

ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(11). Nothing herein is intended to reflect on the admissibility 

of such documents.

A. Plaintiff’s Exhibits

Plaintiff did not list any proposed exhibits in his pretrial statement, other than the 

following four videos: 

1. Plaintiff’s medical treatment escort, Log No. PVSP-FAP-13-02-0061 (Feb. 

23, 2013);

2. Plaintiff’s excessive force interview, Log No. PVSP-FAP-13-02-0061 (Feb. 

23, 2013);

3. Interview of Inmate Brennick (as redacted pursuant to ECF No. 71) 

regarding staff misconduct (Feb. 23, 2013); and

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 8 of 17
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

9

4. Plaintiff’s use of force video (Mar. 26, 2013).

Defendants have agreed to prepare and submit these videos for trial on Plaintiff’s 

behalf, subject to any properly raised objections.

Plaintiff included with his pretrial statement approximately 180 pages of exhibits 

that appear to be copies of documents initially disclosed to Defendants. He was advised 

at the pretrial conference that such submission is insufficient to ensure his exhibits will 

be considered at trial. As explained in section XXI(A), below, Plaintiff must mark his 

exhibits, exchange them with Defendants, and provide the required number of copies to 

the Court by the stated deadlines. 

B. Defendants’ Exhibits

Defendants intend to offer:

1. Crime/Incident Report, log no. PVSP-FAP-13-02-0061, incident date 

February 23, 2013; 

2. CDCR Form 7219, Medical Report of Injury or Unusual Occurrence, 

Plaintiff Hernandez (G-68172), by LVN M. Stringer;

3. CDCR Form 7219, Medical Report of Injury or Unusual Occurrence, 

Defendant M. Hernandez, by LVN A. Medley;

4. CDCR Form 7219, Medical Report of Injury or Unusual Occurrence, 

Defendant R. Rodriguez, by LVN A. Medley;

5. CDCR Form 7219, Medical Report of Injury or Unusual Occurrence, 

Defendant C. Zambrano, by LVN B. Ornellas;

6. CDCR Form 115, Rules Violation Report, log no. 13/FA-02-043R, dated 

February 28, 2013, by Defendant Correctional Officer M. Hernandez;

7. CDCR 602, Inmate Parolee Appeal Packet, log no. 13-00777;

8. Video recording of Plaintiff Hernandez being escorted for medical 

treatment following use-of-force incident, log no. PVSP-FAP-13-02-0061, 

recorded on February 23, 2013;

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 9 of 17
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

10

9. Video recording of Plaintiff Hernandez regarding use-of-force incident, log 

no. PVSP-FAP-13-02-0061, recorded on February 24, 2013;

10.Photographs of Plaintiff’s injuries regarding the incident of February 23, 

2013; and

11.Plaintiff’s Abstract of Judgment. 

C. Joint Exhibits

At this time, the parties do not intend to offer any joint exhibits. The parties are 

directed to ensure against duplication of exhibits by offering joint exhibits where

possible.

XII. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

A. Plaintiff’s Discovery Documents

Plaintiff has not stated his intent to offer Defendants’ initial disclosures or any 

other discovery documents.

B. Defendants’ Discovery Documents

Defendants reserve the right to offer portions of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript

and appended exhibits at the time of trial.

XIII. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

A. Plaintiff’s Request for a Discovery Dispute Conference

Plaintiff requested a discovery dispute conference to address items contained in 

Defendants’ privilege log. (ECF No. 77.) During the pretrial conference, the request was 

granted and the dispute was discussed. Based on that discussion, Defendants were 

ordered to provide to the Court, for in camera review, Item Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 on their 

privilege log. Defendants shall provide the documents forthwith, and in no event later 

than June 26, 2015.

B. Other

None, other than motions in limine.

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 10 of 17
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

11

XIV. STIPULATIONS

The parties are asked to stipulate to the authenticity of Plaintiff’s prison central file 

and medical file following the exchange of trial exhibits. 

XV. AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS

None.

XVI. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

None.

XVII. AGREED STATEMENT

None.

XVIII. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES

The Court will bifurcate the issue of punitive damages. If the jury finds Defendants

liable for punitive damages, the Court will conduct a second phase of trial on the amount 

of punitive damages.

XIX. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

On June 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 

76.)

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, 

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an 

attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In 

certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of 

counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a 

reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer 

counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of 

success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted).

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 11 of 17
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

12

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he 

has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not 

exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, given the 

disputed issues of fact, the court cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to 

succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does 

not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff=s request for the appointment of counsel is 

denied without prejudice. Nevertheless, the Court believes that providing counsel to 

Plaintiff would benefit all parties and the Court. Indeed, the Court has searched for 

volunteer counsel for Plaintiff. However, as of this date, it has not succeeded in locating 

counsel willing to voluntarily represent Plaintiff in this action. The Court will advise the 

parties if that changes. Plaintiff need not renew his motion.

XX. ATTORNEY’S FEES

Defendants do not intend to seek attorney’s fees but do intend to seek costs.

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and may not seek attorney’s fees. Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 

432, 435-38 (1991); Gonzales v. Kangas, 814 F.2d 1411, 1412 (9th Cir. 1987).

XXI. FURTHER TRIAL PREPARATION

A. Trial Exhibits

The parties should exchange their trial exhibits with each other no later than July 

7, 2015.

Plaintiff and Defendants shall submit the original and five copies of all trial 

exhibits, along with exhibit lists, to Courtroom Deputy Laurie Yu no later than July 21, 

2015. Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be pre-marked with numbers preceded by the designation 

“P-___” (e.g., P-1, P-2). Defendants’ exhibits shall be pre-marked with letters preceded 

by the designation “D-___” (e.g. D-A, D-B).

The parties are required to meet and confer, by telephone or other means, to 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 12 of 17
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

13

agree upon and identify their joint exhibits, if any. Joint exhibits must be pre-marked with 

numbers preceded by the designation “J-__” (e.g., J-1, J-2), and Defendants’ counsel 

shall submit the original and five copies of the joint trial exhibits, with exhibit lists, no later 

than July 21, 2015.

B. Motions in Limine Hearing and Briefing Schedule

Any party may file a motion in limine. The purpose of a motion in limine is to 

establish in advance of the trial that certain evidence should not be offered at trial. 

Although the Federal Rules do not explicitly provide for the filing of motions in limine, the 

Court has the inherent power to hear and decide such motions as a function of its duty to 

expeditiously manage trials by eliminating evidence that is clearly inadmissible for any 

purpose. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984); Jonasson v. Lutheran Child 

and Family Servs., 115 F. 3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). The Court will grant a motion in 

limine, and thereby bar use of the evidence in question, only if the moving party 

establishes that the evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Id.; 

Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T Tech., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993).

All motions in limine must be served on the other party/parties, and filed with the 

Court, by July 21, 2015. Any motion in limine must clearly identify the nature of the 

evidence that the moving party seeks to prohibit the other side from offering at trial.

Any opposition to a motion in limine must be served on the other party, and filed 

with the Court, by July 28, 2015.

If any party files a motion in limine, the Court will hear such argument, if any it 

deems necessary, and decide such motions on or before the day of trial, August 11, 

2015, at 8:30 a.m.

Whether or not a party files a motion in limine, that party may still object to the 

introduction of evidence during the trial.

C. Other

The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file trial briefs. 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 13 of 17
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

14

If they nevertheless wish to file briefs, they must do so on or before July 21, 2015. The 

Court will prepare the verdict form and give the parties an opportunity to review it on the 

morning of trial. If the parties wish to submit a proposed verdict form for consideration, 

they must do so on or before July 21, 2015.

The parties have filed proposed jury instructions as required by prior order of the 

Court. Plaintiff’s proposed instructions are not presented in the form required by the 

Court. Nevertheless, the Court will take Plaintiff’s proposals into consideration. The 

Court will prepare the jury instructions for the parties’ review on the morning of trial. In 

selecting proposed instructions, the Court shall use Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury 

Instructions to the extent possible. 

Proposed voir dire questions, if any, shall be filed on or before July 21, 2015. 

Local Rule 162.1.

The parties may serve and file a non-argumentative, brief statement of the case 

suitable for reading to the jury at the outset of jury selection on or before July 21, 2015. 

The Court will consider the parties’ statements but will draft its own statement. The 

parties will be provided with the opportunity to review the Court’s prepared statement on 

the morning of trial.

Defendants shall submit a copy of any proposed videotape or DVD to the 

Courtroom Deputy by 4:00 p.m. on July 21, 2015. If a written transcript of audible words 

on the tape is available, the Court requests that the transcript be submitted to the 

Courtroom Deputy along with the videotape or DVD, solely for the aid of the Court.

If counsel intends to use a laptop computer for presentation of evidence or 

intends to use any audio/visual equipment belonging to the Court, she shall contact 

Courtroom Deputy Laurie Yu at least one week prior to trial so that any necessary 

arrangements and/or training may be scheduled.

XXII. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER

Any party may, on or before July 1, 2015, file and serve written objections to any 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 14 of 17
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

15

of the provisions of this Order. Such objections shall specify the requested modifications, 

corrections, additions or deletions.

XXIII. RULES OF CONDUCT DURING TRIAL

A. General Rules

1. All participants in the trial shall conduct themselves in a civil manner. There 

shall be no hostile interchanges between any of the participants.

2. All oral presentations shall be made from the counsel table, unless otherwise 

permitted by the Court.

3. Sidebar conferences are discouraged. Legal arguments or discussion of 

issues outside the presence of the jury should be done during recesses.

4. Counsel shall advise their respective clients and witnesses not to discuss any 

aspect of the case in the common areas of the courthouse accessible to the 

jurors, such as the lobby, the elevators, the hallways and the cafeteria.

B. Jury Selection

The Court will conduct voir dire to be supplemented by any written questions 

submitted by counsel prior to trial and after the Court has concluded its questioning of 

the jury panel. In some circumstances, the Court may allow brief direct questioning by 

counsel.

C. Opening Statements

Counsel may use visual aids in presenting the opening statement. However, any 

proposed visual aids shall be shown to opposing counsel before opening statement.

D. Case in Chief

1. Counsel shall have his/her witnesses readily available to testify so that 

there are no delays in the presentation of evidence to the trier of fact.

2. At the close of each trial day, counsel shall disclose his/her anticipated 

witnesses and order of presentation for the next day, so that any 

scheduling or evidentiary issues may be raised at that time.

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 15 of 17
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

16

E. Witnesses

1. Before approaching a witness, counsel shall secure leave of Court to 

approach the witness.

2. Before approaching a witness with a writing, counsel shall first show the 

writing to opposing counsel.

F. Exhibits

1. All exhibits shall be marked and identified in accordance with the 

instructions in this pretrial order.

2. An exhibit shall not be published to the jury until it has been admitted into 

evidence and counsel has secured leave of Court to publish the exhibit.

3. The Court usually will conduct an on the record review of the exhibits that 

have been admitted in evidence at the conclusion of each party’s case in 

chief and after each party has rested its entire case.

G. Objections

1. No speaking objections or arguments are permitted in the presence of the 

jury. Counsel shall state the specific legal ground(s) for the objection, and 

the Court will rule based upon the ground(s) stated. The Court will permit 

counsel to argue the matter at the next recess.

2. The Court will not assume that any objection made also implies with it a 

motion to strike an answer that has been given. Therefore, counsel who 

has made an objection, and who also wishes to have an answer stricken, 

shall also specifically move to strike the answer.

H. Closing Argument.

Counsel may use visual aids in presenting the closing argument. However, any 

proposed visual aids shall be shown to opposing counsel before closing argument.

I. Trial Protective Order

Plaintiff’s security status requires that he remain in restraints at all times and 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 16 of 17
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

17

subject to appropriate security measures.

Plaintiff may make arrangements with the litigation coordinator at his facility for 

courtroom attire.

J. Writs of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum

The Court shall separately issue writs of habeas corpus to produce Plaintiff and 

his inmate witnesses for trial.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY BE 

GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL 

AS WELL AS ON ANY PARTY WHO CAUSES NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS 

ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 92 Filed 06/19/15 Page 17 of 17