Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00137/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00137-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendants Officer Steve Schmitz and the City of Hanford (collectively “Defendants”) object 

to Plaintiff Isaac Miller’s (“Plaintiff’s”) amended witness list, which was filed on November 10, 2013. 

Defendants maintain that Plaintiff’s amended witness list is untimely and therefore should be stricken. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objection.

The relevant background on this issue is as follows. In its pretrial order, the Court ordered the 

parties to file and serve their final witness lists by no later than November 8, 2013. (Doc. 64 at 16.) 

Plaintiff filed and served a witness list on November 8, 2013. (Doc. 79.) However, two days later, on 

November 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed and served an amended witness list, the list now in dispute. (Doc. 

91.) The difference between Plaintiff’s first witness list and Plaintiff’s amended witness list is that in 

the latter Plaintiff added one witness: Mike Signorile. (Id. at ¶ 27.)

ISAAC MILLER, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

HANFORD POLICE OFFICER STEVE 

SCHMITZ, et al.,

Defendants.

/

Case No. 1:12-cv-0137 LJO SAB

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ 

OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED 

WITNESS LIST

(Doc. 93)

Case 1:12-cv-00137-LJO-SAB Document 97 Filed 11/13/13 Page 1 of 2
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

The Court will, in the interest of justice, allow Plaintiff to proceed on his amended witness list. 

First, Mike Signorile is a significant witness to Plaintiff’s case. Indeed, the Court denied Defendants 

summary judgment based primarily on Mike Signorile’s deposition testimony. Second, it appears that 

Plaintiff’s omission of Mike Signorile was a simple mistake. Plaintiff promptly corrected his mistake, 

and there is no indication that Plaintiff acted in bad faith. Third, and most importantly, Defendants 

will not be prejudiced. Defendants were fully aware that Mike Signorile would be a part of Plaintiff’s 

case and are fully prepared for his testimony. Given these circumstances, the Court declines to strike 

Plaintiff’s amended witness list.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

Case 1:12-cv-00137-LJO-SAB Document 97 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 2