Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00272/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00272-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EDIN S. CASTELLANOS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEREMY J. MAYA, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-00272-JSW 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE 

CALLING DEFENDANT IN 

PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN CHIEF 

Docket No. 156 

 On July 15, 2016, Defendant filed an administrative motion in which he seeks to preclude 

Plaintiff from calling him in Plaintiff’s case in chief, because Defendant was not disclosed as a 

witness on Plaintiff’s witness list. In the alternative, Defendant seeks an exception to the Court’s 

general rule that where the parties call the same witnesses, the witnesses be called once for all 

purposes. 

 The Court’s Guidelines Trials and Final Pretrial Conferences in Civil Jury Cases 

(“Guidelines”) provides, in pertinent part, that the parties must submit: 

each party’s separate witness list for its case-in-chief witnesses 

(including those appearing by deposition) providing, for all such 

witnesses other than an individual plaintiff and an individual 

defendant, a short statement of the substance of his/her testimony 

and, separately, what, if any, non-cumulative testimony the witness 

will offer. If non-cumulative testimony is not detailed, the Court will 

presume the witness is cumulative. For each witness, state an 

hour/minute time estimate for both direct and cross examination. 

The Court uses this information to estimate the time limits to be 

allocated for trial.

Guidelines, ¶ 1(vi) (emphasis added). 

Contrary to Plaintiff’s interpretation, this does require a party to include a plaintiff or 

defendant in the witness list. It just excuses them from providing a summary of the testimony but 

Case 4:15-cv-00272-JSW Document 157 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

doe

tes

Co

unc

the

on 

add

exa

con

Da

es not exclud

timony. As 

urt to set rea

Plaintif

clear about t

e Court will p

1. 

the estimate

2. 

dition, if Def

amination du

nduct such a

IT IS S

ated: July 15,

de that party

the emphasi

alistic time li

ff failed to li

the Court’s r

permit Plain

The Court w

es set forth b

The Court w

fendant wish

uring Plainti

an examinati

SO ORDER

, 2016 

y from provid

ized languag

imits for tria

st himself or

requirements

ntiff to call D

will not adjus

by the parties

will permit D

hes to respon

ff’s case in c

on. 

RED. 

2

ding a time e

ge explains, t

al. 

r Defendant 

s, he should 

Defendant in 

st the time li

s in their wit

Defendant to 

nd to some o

chief, the Co

___

JEF

Un

estimate for 

the purpose

as a witness

have raised 

his case in c

imitations it 

tness lists. 

 be recalled 

of Plaintiff’s 

ourt will perm

__________

FFREY S. W

nited States D

a plaintiff o

of the inform

s in his case 

this as an iss

chief on the 

has already 

to testify in 

 questioning

mit – but no

___________

WHITE 

District Judg

or a defendan

mation is to 

in chief. If P

sue earlier. 

following co

set in this c

his case in c

g by way of c

ot require – h

__________

ge 

nt’s 

permit the 

Plaintiff was

However, 

onditions: 

ase, based 

chief. In 

crosshim to 

________ 

s

Case 4:15-cv-00272-JSW Document 157 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 2