Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00721/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00721-17/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GERALD WILSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. McDONALD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-0721-JAM-EFB P 

ORDER 

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

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is defendants’ motion to modify the pretrial order to 

identify an additional witness. ECF No. 78. The motion is granted. 

The pretrial order issued in this action on March 24, 2014. ECF No. 72. That order 

identified as one of plaintiff’s witnesses a Dr. Kim, who had provided medical treatment to 

plaintiff. Id. at 2-4, 9. Plaintiff had not completed a subpoena form nor submitted the witness’ 

fee and travel expenses when the order issued, however, and he was admonished to do so if he 

wished to secure Dr. Kim’s testimony at trial. Id. at 9-10. The order also provided: “Each party 

may call any witness designated by the other. No other witnesses will be permitted to testify.” 

Id. at 10. The pretrial order became final on April 7, 2014, after fourteen days elapsed during 

which no objection to the order was filed by either party. Id. at 15. Plaintiff thereafter requested 

blank subpoena forms from the court, which the court provided. ECF No. 73. 

Case 2:10-cv-00721-JCC Document 89 Filed 07/30/14 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 

27 

28 

2

On June 6, 2014, defendants filed the instant motion, asking the court to modify the 

pretrial order to allow them to designate another witness, Dr. Bruce Barnett. ECF No. 78. 

According to defendants, they had expected to use Dr. Kim at trial to address issues on which 

medical expertise was needed. Id. at 1. Defendants have since learned, however, that Dr. Kim 

will not be available for trial because he has been deployed with the military to Afghanistan. Id. 

 “[O]nce a pretrial order has been entered pursuant to Rule 16(e) setting forth the parties 

and issues for trial, modifications are allowed ‘only to prevent manifest injustice.’” Byrd v. 

Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 1998). The court must consider four factors in 

determining whether to modify the order: (1) the degree of prejudice to the other side if the order 

is modified; (2) the ability of the other side to cure any prejudice; (3) the impact of the 

modification on the orderly and efficient conduct of the case; and (4) any willfulness or bad faith 

on the part of the side seeking modification. Id. at 1132. 

Defendants argue that all four factors favor modification of the order. First, they contend 

that plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the modification, because his pretrial statement indicated 

his intent that a medical doctor (Dr. Kim) testify and because there is ample time before trial 

(scheduled on August 18, 2014) for plaintiff to prepare to question him. Because there will be no 

prejudice to plaintiff, defendants argue, the second factor is inapplicable. As to the third factor, 

defendants again point out that there is enough time before trial is scheduled to begin such that 

the requested modification will not impact the conduct of the case. Lastly, defendants argue that 

they did not fail to include Dr. Barnett in their pretrial statement out of willfulness or bad faith, 

but simply because they intended to question Dr. Kim on medical issues. As soon as defendants 

learned Dr. Kim would not be available, they sought to modify the order to include Dr. Barnett. 

Plaintiff argues that defendants have failed to indicate what relevant testimony Dr. Barnett 

is expected to offer at trial and have not shown good cause for the modification. On the contrary, 

however, defendants have indicated that they intend to use Dr. Barnett to testify regarding 

whether plaintiff had a medical condition that required his placement in a lower bunk. ECF No. 

78 at 2. Defendants have shown that they diligently requested modification upon learning of Dr. 

Kim’s unavailability. While it would have been more prudent for defendants to identify all of 

Case 2:10-cv-00721-JCC Document 89 Filed 07/30/14 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 

27 

28 

3

their witnesses in their pretrial statement instead of relying on plaintiff’s witnesses (who plaintiff 

may have chosen not to call), plaintiff has not indicated any prejudice he will suffer if the pretrial 

order is modified, that the modification will interrupt the orderly progress of this case, or that the 

requested modification is sought in bad faith. Accordingly, the motion to modify the pretrial 

order to include Dr. Barnett within defendants’ list of witnesses (ECF No. 78) is hereby 

GRANTED. 

DATED: July 30, 2014. 

Case 2:10-cv-00721-JCC Document 89 Filed 07/30/14 Page 3 of 3