Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04404/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04404-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

TERRY L. MEIER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-04404 WHA

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

FOR GOOD CAUSE and after a final pretrial conference, the Court issues the

following final pretrial order: 

1. This case shall go to a BENCH TRIAL on JANUARY 29, 2007, at 1:00 P.M.

(unless otherwise notified), and shall continue until completed on the schedule discussed at the

conference. The issues to be tried shall be those set forth in the joint proposed pretrial order

except to the extent modified by order in limine. This final pretrial order supersedes all the

complaint, answer and any counterclaims, cross-claims or third-party complaints, i.e., only the

issues expressly identified for trial remain in the case. 

2. Except for good cause, each party is limited to the witnesses and exhibits

disclosed in the joint proposed final pretrial order less any excluded or limited by an order

in limine. Materials or witnesses used solely for impeachment need not be disclosed and may

be used, subject to the rules of evidence. 

Case 3:05-cv-04404-WHA Document 91 Filed 01/23/07 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

2

3. The stipulations of facts set forth in the joint proposed final pretrial order are

approved and binding on all parties. 

4. Each side shall have TEN HOURS to examine witnesses (counting direct

examination, cross-examination, re-direct examination, re-cross examination, etc.). 

Opening statements and closing arguments shall not count against the limit. In setting this

limit, the Court has carefully considered the witness summaries provided for the final pretrial

conference. Counsel had been directed to specify for each witness all non-cumulative

testimony. Conclusory and repetitive proffers were made instead. Counsel wholly failed to

justify the lengthy time estimates requested. The Court nonetheless did the best it could with

the information given. It also drew on its experience in presiding over cases of similar

complexity and the Court’s earlier 25 years in trial practice as a lawyer. Finally, the Court took

into account the competing demands on the Court’s calendar and the need to reduce the burden

on the members of the jury who will decide the case. The limits are subject to enlargement but

only on the “safety-valve” terms explained at the final pretrial conference. 

7. The parties shall follow the Court's current Guidelines for Trial and

Final Pretrial Conference, separately provided and available on the Internet at

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, which guidelines are incorporated as part of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04404-WHA Document 91 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 2