Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00112/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00112-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRAHAM ROGER-LEE DE-LUIS-CONTI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SERGEANT JOHN COZAD, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-02-112 EDL

ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE 

Following the pretrial conference held on March 31, 2006, the Court issues the following

Order:

1. The length of the trial will be 4 days beginning on April 24, 2006. Trial will run from 8:30

a.m. until 1:30 p.m., with two 15-minute breaks. Counsel shall be available each day at 8:00

a.m. and after 1:30 p.m. to address any issues outside the presence of the jury. 

2. The Court has imposed time limits in this case. Each party will have a total of 1.5 hours for

opening and closing arguments, to be allocated at the discretion of each party. Each party

will have 15 minutes for follow-up voir dire of potential jurors. Plaintiff will have 5.5 hours

for trial testimony and Defendants will have 4.0 hours for trial testimony. Time spent crossexamining witnesses counts against the total time for the party conducting the crossexamination. 

3. Witnesses shall remain outside the courtroom until they testify. 

4. The parties shall meet and confer regarding a stipulated summary of claims at issue in the

Case 3:02-cv-00112-EDL Document 129 Filed 03/31/06 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

case, which the Court will read to potential jurors during voir dire, and will submit this

summary to the Court on or before April 7, 2006.

5. Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s exhibits 1-3 and 5-8 are overruled, except that Plaintiff

shall redact the exhibits in the manner discussed during the pretrial conference. Defendants’

objection to Plaintiff’s exhibits 9-10 are deferred. The parties have agreed to withdraw

Plaintiff’s exhibit 4 and replace that exhibit with a stipulation, which they will provide to the

Court on or before April 7, 2006. Plaintiff shall provide redacted copies of all exhibits to be

used on or before April 13, 2006.

6. For the reasons stated at the pretrial conference with respect to the parties’ motions in limine,

it is further ordered that: Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s crime

of conviction is granted; Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s prior

lawsuits and dismissed defendants is granted; and Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude

evidence of Plaintiff’s current status as a prisoner is granted.

7. With the parties’ agreement, the Court will not give jury instruction number 11.1, but will

revise jury instructions numbers 11.9 and 11.10 as discussed during the conference. The

Court also declines to instruct the jury on California Penal Code section 286, since it is not a

legal element of Plaintiff’s claims, but the Court does not rule out clarifying for the jury the

meaning of sodomy if the term is used and appears not to be understood by the jury.

8. The parties also agreed upon the revised verdict form drafted by the Court and distributed at

the conference.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-00112-EDL Document 129 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2