Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00776/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00776-61/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D. L. RUNNELS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:04-cv-0776-TLN-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The case is set for trial on October 31, 2016. Defendants request to modify the 

pretrial order to allow defendants to augment their witness list to further designate as witnesses 

Drs. R. Kanan and M. Cho. ECF No. 306. Plaintiff has submitted no opposition to the motion. 

 The court considers four factors in determining whether to modify a pretrial order: (1) the 

degree of prejudice to the non-moving party from the modification; (2) the ability of the nonmoving party to cure any prejudice; (3) the impact of the modification on the orderly conduct of 

the case; and (4) any bad faith by the moving party. Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 

1998). 

 Defendants have met their burden of showing that these factors support the requested 

modification. They seek to present the testimony of the additional witnesses to rebut potential 

testimony by plaintiff that he has discovered new evidence of injury caused by defendants. There 

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 309 Filed 08/02/16 Page 1 of 2
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

does not appear to be any prejudice to plaintiff in granting the request. Defendants listed Drs. 

Cho and Kanan in their original pretrial statement and also submitted declarations from them 

along with their summary judgment motion. Plaintiff is therefore aware of them, and he has 

several months before trial to prepare for their testimony. Prior defense counsel left these 

witnesses out of the pretrial statement inadvertently, not in bad faith. And plaintiff has presented 

no opposition to the motion. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the pretrial order is modified to add Drs. Kanan 

and Cho to the list of defense witnesses. 

 So ordered. 

DATED: August 2, 2016. 

 

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 309 Filed 08/02/16 Page 2 of 2