Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00285/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00285-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMIE E. PHILLIPS, SR.,

Plaintiff, No. C 04-0285 PJH

v. SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL 

PRETRIAL ORDER

CITY OF RICHMOND, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court are several motions and objections pertaining to the court’s ruling on

certain pretrial matters. 

Witnesses

Defendants object (docket # 46) to plaintiff’s witness list (docket # 37), which was

timely filed, and to his supplemental witness list (docket # 42), which was not timely filed

having been filed the day before the pretrial conference rather than twenty days before the

conference as ordered, on the basis that many of the listed witnesses were not timely

disclosed pursuant to plaintiff’s initial disclosure obligations and continuing duty to

supplement. Plaintiff argues (docket # 50) that his first witness list, which was filed in

accordance with this court’s order, was tantamount to a supplementation of his initial

disclosures, and asserts further that any failure on his part was harmless as the defendants

were aware of the identity and relevance of these witnesses. Plaintiff makes the same

argument essentially with respect to his supplemental witness list.

While the court does not agree that filing a witness list twenty days before the pretrial

conference obviates the need of a party to supplement his disclosures as the information is

Case 4:04-cv-00285-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/19/05 Page 1 of 3
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

gathered during discovery, because many of these witnesses are also on defendants’ witness

list and because they are for the most part, employees of defendant, the court OVERRULES

defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s timely filed witness list. However, with respect to plaintiff’s

supplemental witness list, the court SUSTAINS the objection, and none of those witnesses

may be called in plaintiff’s case-in-chief, plaintiff having failed to provide a reason, much less

good cause for his failure to timely file the list or to request leave to supplement his list. With

regard to the one witness on the supplemental list whom plaintiff claims to have discovered

after filing his original list, the court similarly finds the request unsupported by declaration or

other evidence, and sustains it as well.

No witnesses who were not listed on the original list of either party will be permitted to

testify, and the court will entertain no further requests on this issue.

Exhibits

Plaintiff untimely filed two supplemental exhibit lists (docket # 41 and 44) on the day

before the pretrial conference. As neither the court nor defense counsel had any opportunity

to even read the lists before the pretrial conference, the untimely filings were ordered stricken

in the final pretrial order. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on

this issue (docket # 58), which is noticed for hearing on October 19, 2005. The hearing date

is VACATED. Defendants’ opposition is due September 28, 2005, after which the matter will

be decided on the papers. As the court does not permit reply briefs for motions in limine and

as a pretrial conference has already been held, no reply may be filed and no hearing will

be held. 

Additionally, the court has received yet another motion in limine filed by plaintiff (docket

# 59), to exclude defendants’ exhibit number 31. As the date for motions in limine has long

passed, the court is not inclined to entertain this motion. However, a perusal of the documents

suggests that this motion might be related to the subject of the motion for reconsideration. 

Accordingly, defendants may oppose the motion by September 28, 2005. No reply may be

filed and no hearing will be held.

No additional motions may be filed in this case without leave of court. The final pretrial

Case 4:04-cv-00285-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

order permits the parties to file no later than one week before trial, any stipulation regarding

the admissibility of exhibits, any additional voir dire questions on the subject of race or

gender, a joint form of verdict, and a joint set of case specific jury instructions, with no more

than six disputed instructions. Any additional filings will be stricken by the court.

As the parties have agreed to a trial date that affords seven rather than eight days for

trial, the time limits for each side are reduced to ten hours, instead of twelve for direct and

cross examination.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00285-PJH Document 60 Filed 09/19/05 Page 3 of 3