Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02343/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02343-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

1 According to plaintiff, defendant has deleted 53 of its

exhibits and added several which were not produced in discovery.

Defendant, on the other hand, contends that plaintiff has delivered

twenty-three exhibits to defendant which he intends to introduce

at trial but were not included in the court’s order. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ASBERRY,

NO. CIV. S-01-2343 LKK/PAN

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

CITY OF SACRAMENTO/SANITATION 

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

 /

This order addresses a number of objections the parties have

raised which bear on the pretrial order and trial in the

above-captioned cases. Below, I address those objections.

First, the court is in receipt of the parties’ correspondences

and objections regarding exhibits to be presented during the trial1

Case 2:01-cv-02343-LKK -KJM Document 252 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 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

2

The court hereby ORDERS that the parties exchange with each other

within ten (10) days a new exhibit list for both Asberry I and

Asberry II which lists all the prior exhibits and the new exhibits

which they intend to use at trial. Both parties shall file these

exhibit lists with the court at that time. Both parties shall also

resubmit to each other their exhibits, indexed and identified as

they are ordered in the exhibit lists, within ten (10) days of this

order. On June 6, 2006, at 10:30 a.m., the parties shall appear

before the court, at which time the court will take up any

objections the parties have raised with regard to exhibits. The

court will amend its final pretrial order accordingly. 

Second, plaintiff objects to defendant’s addition of two

witnesses to its witness list in the pretrial order, Lori Swinehart

and Patty Vasquez. Plaintiff contends that he is prejudiced by

this augmentation because he has not had the opportunity to depose

or discover the alleged percipient knowledge of the newly listed

witnesses. Plaintiff’s contention is well-taken. The court hereby

ORDERS defendant to file a motion to amend or to augment the pretrial order within five (5) days of this order. Plaintiff shall

file a response within five (5) days thereafter. 

Third, defendant proposes to augment the pretrial order by

adding fourteen affirmative defenses. Defendant previously

requested that the court include these defenses in it final

pretrial order. In a June 18, 2003 order, however, the court

explained to defendant that the court would not consider

affirmative defenses which the court has already ruled in

Case 2:01-cv-02343-LKK -KJM Document 252 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 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

3

defendant’s favor. The court also articulated that it has already

ordered briefing on all defenses, and thus finds it unnecessary to

list each theory in the pretrial order. Accordingly, the court

will not amend the pretrial order with respect to defendant’s

affirmative defenses.

Finally, due to scheduling conflicts, the trial is CONTINUED

to June 13, 2006 at 10:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 28, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:01-cv-02343-LKK -KJM Document 252 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 3