Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02173/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02173-17/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

ROBERT THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. RAZO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB PC

PRETRIAL ORDER

Jury Trial: February 24, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. in 

Courtroom 2 (AWI)

Plaintiff Robert Thomas (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 22, 2010. This 

action for damages is proceeding against Defendants J. Razo, A. Moreno, D. Brown, I. Vera, S. 

Vasquez and A. Holguin for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United 

States Constitution. Plaintiff’s claim arises out of Defendants’ alleged use of excessive force on 

April 5, 2010, while he was incarcerated at California Correctional Institution (“CCI”).

1

I. Jurisdiction and Venue

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this federal civil rights action. 28 U.S.C. § 

1331. Venue is proper because the conduct allegedly occurred in this judicial district.

 

1 On July 8, 2011, the remaining claims were dismissed from the action at the screening stage for failure to state a 

claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

II. Jury Trial

Plaintiff and Defendants demand a trial by jury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). 

III. Facts

A. Undisputed Facts

1. Plaintiff is a convicted felon, serving a life sentence.

2. On April 5, 2010, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the CCI in Tehachapi, California.

3. Defendants J. Razo, A. Moreno, D. Brown, I. Vera, S. Vasquez and A. Holguin 

were all employed at CCI on April 5, 2010.

4. On the morning of April 5, 2010, after Plaintiff attended a Unit Classification 

Committee (“UCC”) meeting, an incident occurred, the nature of which is disputed.

5. Several officers used Oleoresin Capsicum (O.C. pepper spray) during

the incident. No other weapons were used during the incident.

6. After Plaintiff was transported to the medical clinic to be put into a holding cell for 

evaluation, another incident occurred, the nature of which is disputed.

7. Registered Nurse N. Kimble performed a medical evaluation of Plaintiff following 

the incidents and prepared a medical report.

8. Defendants were medically evaluated following the incidents, with injuries noted to 

Defendants Razo and Vasquez.

9. Plaintiff was decontaminated with cool water for pepper spray exposure after the 

incidents.

10. Plaintiff refused to be photographed and/or interviewed on video following the 

incident.

11. Plaintiff was charged with two separate Rules Violations (CDC Form 115) for 

battery on a peace officer, due to the injuries to Defendants Razo and Vasquez, and he was found 

guilty of both.

B. Disputed Facts

1. Whether Plaintiff disagreed with the UCC’s decision to retain his level-IV 

placement status, and argued with committee members;

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

2. Whether Plaintiff refused repeated orders by staff to return to his cell following the 

committee meeting, and refused orders to “cuff up”;

3. Whether Plaintiff advanced toward Defendant Razo in a threatening manner;

4. Whether Plaintiff kicked Defendant Vasquez in the left knee while he was being 

placed into a holding cell;

5. Whether Plaintiff continued to resist staff by kicking his feet, twisting his torso, and 

trying to turn toward staff;

6. What amount of force Defendants Razo, Moreno, Vera, Vasquez, Holguin, and 

Brown used on Plaintiff;

7. Whether Defendants kicked and punched Plaintiff while he was on the ground;

8. Whether Defendants Razo, Moreno, Vera, Vasquez, Holguin, and Brown acted in 

good faith to prevent an assault and to restore order, or maliciously and sadistically to hurt 

Plaintiff; and

9. What injuries Plaintiff sustained from the incidents, if any, other than pepper spray 

exposure.

C. Disputed Evidentiary Issues2

Defendants filed three motions in limine on September 12, 2014. Plaintiff opposed the 

motions on September 24, 2014. 

Defendants also reserve the right to object to testimony and evidence until they have heard 

the testimony and/or seen the exhibits.

D. Special Factual Information

None.

IV. Relief Sought

Plaintiff seeks $30,000 in compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages.

Defendants seek judgment in their favor.

 

2 The parties may file motions in limine, addressed in section XVIII, and/or object to the introduction of evidence at 

trial.

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

V. Points of Law

A. Section 1983

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, 

any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 

immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an 

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional by 

persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); 

Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 

930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). To prevail on his claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate a link between 

actions or omissions of Defendants and the violation of his Eighth Amendment rights; there is no 

respondeat superior liability under section 1983. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77, 129 

S.Ct. 1937 (2009); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. 

B. Eighth Amendment Claim

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects 

prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of 

confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 

101 S.Ct. 2392 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While conditions of confinement may be, and 

often are, restrictive and harsh, they must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of 

pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) (quotation marks omitted). 

Not every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action. 

Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37, 130 S.Ct. at 1178 (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9) (quotation marks 

omitted). Necessarily excluded from constitutional recognition is the de minimis use of physical 

force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind. 

Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37-8, 130 S.Ct. at 1178 (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10) (quotations marks 

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

omitted). In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, courts may 

evaluate the extent of the prisoner’s injury, the need for application of force, the relationship 

between that need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible 

officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 

7 (quotation marks and citations omitted). 

While the absence of a serious injury is relevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry, it does 

not end it. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always 

violates contemporary standards of decency. Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37, 130 S.Ct. at 1178 (citing 

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, it is the use of force rather than the 

resulting injury which ultimately counts. Id. at 37-8. 

C. Qualified Immunity

The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for 

civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 

U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Qualified immunity balances two important interests, “the need to hold 

public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield 

officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” 

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly 

incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Officers can have a reasonable, but 

mistaken, belief about the facts or about what the law requires in a certain situation. Saucier v. 

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001); Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 

2002).

In Saucier v. Katz, the Supreme Court outlined a specific, two-step analysis for 

determining whether qualified immunity is warranted. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. The first inquiry 

is whether, when taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the alleged facts show the 

officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Id. at 201. If a violation is established, the 

second inquiry is whether the right was clearly established. Id. “This inquiry, it is vital to note, 

must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition 

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

....” Id. The Supreme Court explained that in determining whether the right was clearly 

established, “[t]he relevant, dispositive inquiry . . . is whether it would be clear to a reasonable 

officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id. at 202.

The purpose of qualified immunity “is to acknowledge that reasonable mistakes can be made as to 

the legal constraints on particular police conduct.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205. In an excessive force 

context, the reasonableness of the officer’s belief should be judged from the perspective “onscene.” Id. (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)). If an officer reasonably, but 

mistakenly, believed a person was likely to fight back, the officer would be justified in using more 

force than necessary. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205. “The calculus of reasonableness” must allow for 

the reality that officers are often forced to make split-second decisions as to what force is required 

in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 211 (citing 

Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97).

Recently, the Supreme Court reconsidered the mandatory, two-step procedure set forth in 

Saucier and concluded that the two-step Saucier procedure should not be regarded as an inflexible 

requirement. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. The Supreme Court noted that, while the sequence set 

forth in Saucier is often appropriate, it should no longer be regarded as mandatory. The judges of 

the district courts and the courts of appeals may exercise their sound discretion in deciding which 

of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the 

circumstances in a particular case. Id.

D. 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 § 5.5 

(2008). The jury must find that Defendants’ conduct was “motivated by evil motive or intent, or . 

. . involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” Smith v. 

Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625 (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).

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

E. Federal Rules of Evidence

Federal Rules of Evidence 608 and 609 provide that evidence of a witness’s prior felony 

conviction or instance of conduct demonstrating a propensity to lie may be used to impeach that 

witness’s testimony. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that evidence of prior crimes, 

wrongs, or acts cannot be used to prove the character of the person in order to show conduct in 

conformity with that character trait. Such prior acts may be admissible for other purposes only, 

such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of 

mistake or accident. Id.

VI. Abandoned Issues

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants for (1) deliberate indifference to a serious medical 

need in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (2) violation of due process in violation of the 

Fourteenth Amendment were dismissed at the pleading stage for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

VII. Witnesses

The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including 

rebuttal and impeachment witnesses. 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 Witness List

1. Plaintiff

2. Defendant Officer J. Razo

3. Defendant Officer A. Moreno

4. Defendant Counselor D. Brown

5. Defendant Officer I. Vera

6. Defendant Officer S. Vasquez

7. Defendant Officer A. Holguin

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

B. Defendants’ Witness List3

1. Defendant Officer J. Razo

2. Defendant Officer A. Moreno

3. Defendant Counselor D. Brown

4. Defendant Officer I. Vera

5. Defendant Officer S. Vasquez

6. Defendant Officer A. Holguin

7. Steven Borg, Expert Witness

8. Counselor D. Chapman

9. Registered Nurse N. Kimble

10. Officer M. Nicholson

11. Officer J. Cardenas

12. Counselor C. Holman

13. Officer C. Nelson

14. Registered Nurse F. Roberts

15. Custodian of Records, CCI

VIII. 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).

A. Plaintiff’s Exhibits

1. All reports written by Defendants related to the April 5, 2010, incident.

 

3 Defendants are not required to call all of the witnesses they listed. However, as is the Court’s general practice in 

cases such as this, witnesses the defense plans to call shall be present on February 24, 2015, by 9:30 a.m. and shall be 

available for Plaintiff to call for direct examination.

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

2. All inmate appeals filed by Plaintiff, against Defendants, related to the April 5, 

2010, incident.

3. “All other legal documents regarding named Defendants.”

B. Defendants’ Exhibits

1. Photographs of Facility IV-A, Unit 4-C at CCI, committee area

2. Photographs of Facility IV-A, Unit 4-C at CCI, dayroom area

3. Photographs of CCI Facility IV-A, medical clinic holding area

4. Diagram of Unit 4-C, Facility IV-A at CCI

5. Diagram of CCI Facility IV-A, medical clinic area

6. Photographs of Defendant Vasquez from April 5, 2010

7. Medical report(s) for Defendant Vasquez dated April 5, 2010

8. Photographs of Defendant Razo from April 5, 2010

9. Medical report(s) for Defendant Razo dated April 5, 2010

10. Photograph of Plaintiff from April 5, 2010

11. Medical Report (Form 7219) for Plaintiff dated April 5, 2010, completed by RN 

Kimble

12. UCC Committee Report (CDC Form 128 Chrono) for Plaintiff dated April 5, 2010

13. Curriculum Vitae of Steven Borg

14. Expert Report of S. Borg

15. Rules Violation Reports (CDC Form 115) for Plaintiff dated April 5, 2010

IX. Discovery Documents to be Used at Trial

Defendants may use Plaintiff’s deposition transcript and appended exhibits for 

impeachment purposes at trial.

X. Further Discovery or Motions

None, other than motions in limine.

XI. Stipulations

None.

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

XII. Amendments/Dismissals

None.4

XIII. Settlement Negotiations

None.

XIV. Agreed Statement

None.

XV. Separate Trial of Issues

The punitive damages phase, if any, will be bifurcated. 

XVI. Impartial Experts – Limitation of Experts

None.

XVII. Attorney’s Fees

None.

XVIII.Further Trial Preparation

A. Motions In Limine Hearing and Briefing Schedule

Any party may file a motion in limine, which is a procedural mechanism to limit in 

advance testimony or evidence in a particular area. United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 

(9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). In the case of a jury trial, the Court’s ruling gives 

Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel advance notice of the scope of certain evidence so that 

admissibility is settled before attempted use of the evidence before the jury. Id. at 1111-12 

(quotation marks omitted). 

Any motions in limine must be served on the other party, and filed with the Court, by 

February 13, 2015.5 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 February 20, 2015.

 

4 As discussed previously, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment and violation of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment were 

dismissed at the pleading stage for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

5 As previously noted, Defendants have already filed their motions in limine. 

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

If any party files a motion in limine, the Court will hear and decide such motions on the 

morning of trial 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.

B. Duty of Counsel to Pre-Mark Exhibits

The parties are ordered to meet and confer no later than February 17, 2015, for the purpose 

of pre-marking and examining each other’s exhibits. All joint exhibits must be pre-marked with 

numbers preceded by the designation JT (e.g., JTX-1, JTX-2). All of Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be 

pre-marked with numbers (e.g., PX-1, PX-2, etc.). All of Defendants’ exhibits shall be premarked with letters (e.g., PX-A, PX-B, etc.).

1. Defendants’ counsel shall create four (4) complete, legible sets of exhibits in 

binders as follows:

(a) Two sets of binders to be delivered to Courtroom Clerk Renee Gaumnitz 

by February 20, 2015, one for use by the Courtroom Clerk and the other for the Court; and

(b) One set for each counsel’s own use.

If the parties desire, they may have a fifth set of binders to be used for the 

purposes of questioning witnesses.

2. Defendants’ counsel and Plaintiff shall meet and confer and make the following 

determination with respect to each proposed exhibit to be introduced into evidence and 

Defendants’ counsel shall prepare separate indexes - one listing joint exhibits, and one listing each 

party’s separate exhibits as follows:

(a) Duplicate exhibits (i.e., documents which both sides desire to introduce into 

evidence) shall be marked as a joint exhibit and numbered as directed above (e.g., JTX-1). Joint 

exhibits shall be listed on a separate index and shall be admitted into evidence on the motion of 

any party without further foundation.

(b) Exhibits that are not jointly offered and to which there is no objection to 

introduction shall likewise be appropriately marked (e.g., PX-1 or DX-A) and shall be listed in the 

offering party’s index in a column entitled “Admitted In Evidence.” Such exhibits will be 

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

admitted upon introduction and motion of the party, without further foundation.

(c) Those exhibits to which the only objection is a lack of foundation shall be 

marked appropriately (e.g., PX-2 - For Identification, or DX-B - For Identification) and shall be 

indexed in a column entitled “Objection Foundation.”

(d) Remaining exhibits to which there are objections to admissibility not solely 

based on a lack of foundation shall likewise be marked appropriately (e.g., PX-3 - For 

Identification or DX-C - For Identification) and shall be indexed in a third column entitled “Other 

Objection” on the offering party’s index.

 3. Each separate index shall consist of the exhibit number or letter, a brief description 

of the exhibit, and the three columns outlined above, as demonstrated in the example below:

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

 ADMITTED OBJECTION OTHER 

EXHIBIT # DESCRIPTION IN EVIDENCE FOUNDATION OBJECTION

Two sets of the completed joint index and the separate indexes shall be delivered to the 

Courtroom Clerk with the two sets of binders.

The Court has no objection to counsel using copies. However, the copies must be legible. 

If any document offered into evidence is partially illegible, the Court may sua sponte exclude it 

from evidence.

C. Discovery Documents

Defendants may use Plaintiff’s deposition transcript and appended exhibits for

impeachment purposes.

D. Trial Briefs

The parties are directed to file and serve their trial briefs by February 13, 2015. Local Rule 

285. The parties need not include in the trial brief any issue that is adequately addressed in a 

motion in limine or in an opposition brief to a motion in limine. Any response to a trial brief shall 

be filed and served by February 20, 2015. 

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

E. Voir Dire

The parties shall file and serve proposed voir dire questions, if any, by February 20, 2015.

6

Further, in order to aid the Court in the proper voir dire examination of the prospective 

jurors, counsel should lodge with the Court on the first morning of trial a list of all prospective 

witnesses, including rebuttal witnesses, that counsel reasonably expect to call. The purpose of the 

lists is to advise the prospective jurors of possible witnesses to determine if a prospective juror is 

familiar with any potential witness.

F. Agreed Summary Of The Case

The parties shall lodge with the Courtroom Clerk a joint agreed summary of the case, 

briefly outlining the positions of the parties, by February 20, 2015. The summary will be read to 

the jury panel at the outset of the trial solely for the purposes of assisting in the jury selection 

process. The contents of the summary shall not be deemed to be evidence or an admission or 

stipulation by a party as to any contested fact or issue.

G. Proposed Jury Instructions

The parties shall file and serve proposed jury instructions February 20, 2015.

7

All proposed jury instructions shall be in duplicate. One set shall indicate the party 

proposing the instruction, with each instruction numbered or lettered, shall cite supporting 

authority, and shall include the customary “Given, Given as Modified, or Refused,” showing the 

Court’s action with regard to each instruction. The other set shall be an exact copy of the first set, 

but shall be a “clean” copy that does not contain the identification of the offering party, instruction 

number or letter, supporting authority, or reference to the Court’s disposition of the proposed 

instruction.

The parties are ordered to confer after the trial confirmation hearing to determine which 

instructions they agree should be given. As soon as possible thereafter, the parties shall submit a 

list of joint, unopposed instructions. As to those instructions to which the parties dispute, the 

Court will conduct its jury instruction conference during trial at a convenient time.

 

6 Defendants have already filed their proposed voir dire.

7 Defendants have already filed their proposed jury instructions.

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

H. Proposed Verdict Form

The parties shall file and serve a proposed verdict form by 4:00 p.m. on February 20, 

2015.8

I. Use Of Videotape and Computers 

Any party wishing to use a videotape for any purpose during trial shall lodge a copy of the 

videotape with the Courtroom Clerk by February 20, 2015. If a written transcript of audible words 

on the tape is available, the Court requests that the transcript be lodged with the Court, solely for 

the aid of the Court.

If Defendants’ counsel intends to use a laptop computer for presentation of evidence, he or 

she shall contact the Courtroom Clerk at least one week prior to trial. The Courtroom Clerk will 

then arrange a time for counsel to bring the laptop to the courtroom, and meet with a 

representative of the Information and Technology Department and receive a brief training session 

on how counsel’s equipment interacts with the Court’s audio/visual equipment. If Defendants’ 

counsel intends to use PowerPoint, the resolution should be set no higher than 1024 x 768 when 

preparing the presentation. 

J. Morning Conferences During Trial

During the trial, it is the obligation of counsel to meet with the Court each morning to 

advise the Court and the opposing side which documents are proposed to be put into evidence that 

have not previously been admitted by stipulation, court order, or otherwise ruled upon. The Court 

will rule on those documents, to the extent possible, prior to the commencement of trial each day 

out of the presence of the jury. If the ruling depends upon the receipt of testimony, the Court will 

rule as requested upon the receipt of such testimony.

The Court shall consider any other legal matter at morning conferences as well. The Court 

does not wish to recess the trial to hear legal argument outside of the presence of the jury, and 

proper preparation by counsel will eliminate the need for that result.

 

8 Defendants have already filed their proposed verdict forms.

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

K. Order Of Witnesses

In order to make the trial operate efficiently and smoothly, counsel have the continuing 

obligation to advise the opposing side as to which witnesses he or she intends to call at each trial 

session.

XIX. 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 podium, 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

1. 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

1. 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 or 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 or 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 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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 

the 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 

wishes to also have an answer stricken must specifically move to strike the answer.

H. Closing Argument

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

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

XX. Objections to Pretrial Order

Any party may file and serve written objections to any of the provisions of this order on or 

before February 17, 2014. Such objections shall specify the requested modifications, corrections, 

additions or deletions. 

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 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

XXI. Miscellaneous Matters

None.

***

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS 

FOR THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE DISMISSAL OF THIS 

ACTION OR ENTRY OF DEFAULT, ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL AS WELL AS ON ANY 

PARTY WHO CAUSES NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-02173-AWI-DLB Document 92 Filed 02/09/15 Page 17 of 17