Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00003/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00003-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEGO EGBUONU,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORP., aka AMTRAK,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C04-0003 BZ

PRETRIAL ORDER

The pretrial conference in this case was held on March

20, 2007. Plaintiff was represented at the conference by

Anthony S. Petru, Esq. and John Furstenthal, Esq. Defendant

was represented by B. Clyde Hutchinson, Esq. and Karen

Elizabeth Giquinto, Esq.

 This Order shall control the subsequent conduct of the

case and be modified only to prevent manifest injustice. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). 

1. LENGTH AND TIME OF TRIAL

 Trial shall begin on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, at 8:30

a.m. in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden

Case 3:04-cv-00003-BZ Document 73 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. The trial

schedule is as follows: 8:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.

 Plaintiff shall be prepared to call witnesses Wednesday,

April 11, 2007. Plaintiff shall have a total of 17 hours and

defendant shall have a total of 8 hours within which to

present testimony. Each side shall schedule witnesses to

avoid any interruption in the presentation of testimony. 

2. JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Rulings on the instructions were made on the record at

the pretrial conference. The parties shall submit revised or

additional instructions as discussed during the conference. 

A chambers copy of all jury instructions shall be submitted on

a diskette formatted in WordPerfect 8, 9, 10, or 13 or may be 

e-mailed to the following address: bzpo@cand.uscourts.gov 

3. RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL

Defendant’s motion to bifurcate the punitive damages

portion of the trial is DENIED. Proper instructions and a

carefully crafted verdict form will avoid confusion, and a

limiting instruction will suffice to obviate any prejudice

that may accompany the introduction, if any, of evidence of

defendant’s financial condition. 

4. RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

The Court makes the following rulings on the motions in

Limine filed by the defendant:

(1) Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of complaints

of alleged sexual harassment by a coworker against conductor

Shawn Teller is GRANTED. While employee prior acts may be

relevant to show intentional discrimination or that the

Case 3:04-cv-00003-BZ Document 73 Filed 03/21/07 Page 2 of 5
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

employer knew of and ratified such behavior, such evidence has

to have a connection to the protected group pertinent to the

case. Cf., Heyne v. Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475, 1479 (9th Cir.

1995) (allowing plaintiff alleging sexual harassment to

introduce evidence of supervisor’s sexual harassment of

others). This evidence is not relevant to plaintiff’s

allegations of defendant’s alleged racial and national origin

discrimination, or ratification thereof. Moreover, any

relevance is far outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 

Fed. R. Evid. 403.

(2) Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of complaints

pertaining to conductor Shawn Teller’s interactions with

passengers is DENIED. This evidence may be relevant to

demonstrate Teller’s intent or purpose, or whether defendant

knew of and ratified Teller’s tortious behavior. See Fed. R.

Evid. 404(b). The value of this evidence outweighs any

prejudice to defendant. Fed. R. Evid. 403. The parties,

however, are cautioned to avoid consumption of time on

collateral issues. 

(3) Defendant’s motion to limit the number of witnesses

plaintiff will call is DENIED. The adoption of time limits

should eliminate unnecessarily cumulative testimony. 

(4) Defendant’s motion to exclude the 1996 newspaper

articles is GRANTED. The evidence is hearsay, is dated, and

is not in any way related to the events at issue or

defendant’s west coast operations. Any relevance is far

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid.

403.

Case 3:04-cv-00003-BZ Document 73 Filed 03/21/07 Page 3 of 5
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

5. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS

The Court makes the following rulings on defendant’s

objections to plaintiff’s proposed exhibits:

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11: For the reasons expressed in

paragraph 4(4), this objection is SUSTAINED. Exhibit 11 is

excluded.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12: For the reasons expressed in the

March 20 conference, this objection is OVERRULED subject to

renewal if the parties are unable to resolve the foundational

issues prior to trial.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 13: For the reasons expressed in the

March 20 conference, this objection is OVERRULED subject to

renewal if the parties are unable to resolve the foundational

issues prior to trial.

6. MISCELLANEOUS 

Plaintiff shall by Wednesday, March 20, 2007, inform

defendant and this Court in writing as to whether she intends

to submit evidence at trial of defendant’s wealth. 

Should defendant seek to introduce evidence at trial of

defendant’s poverty, it shall file notice of such intention,

with citation to authority, by Wednesday, March 28, 2007. Any

objection by plaintiff shall be filed by Wednesday, April 4,

2007. 

Defendant shall lodge the transcripts of any depositions

it anticipates using at trial by Wednesday, March 28, 2007. 

Plaintiff shall file any objections to defendant’s

designation of deposition testimony by Wednesday, March 28,

2007. 

Case 3:04-cv-00003-BZ Document 73 Filed 03/21/07 Page 4 of 5
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

Plaintiff shall file a designation of deposition

testimony by Wednesday, March 28, 2007. Simultaneously,

plaintiff shall lodge the transcripts of any depositions it

anticipates using at trial. Any objections from defendant

shall be filed by Wednesday, April 4, 2007. 

For the reasons discussed at the conference, and as

agreed by the parties, the parties shall craft and file by

Wednesday, March 28, 2007, joint instructions relating to the

“common carrier” claim and the defense of contributory

negligence.

Any objections to the proposed Special Verdict form

provided to the parties at the March 20 conference shall be

filed by Wednesday, April 4, 2007. 

Any party who desires a transcript of the trial must make

arrangements with the court reporter. Any party who needs an

interpreter or audio or visual equipment shall make its own

arrangements for same and clear all such equipment with court

security personnel.

 The parties are instructed to notify the court

immediately if this action should settle before the

commencement of trial. 

Dated: March 21, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\EGBUONU\PRETRIAL\PRETRIAL.ORD.DRAFT.wpd

Case 3:04-cv-00003-BZ Document 73 Filed 03/21/07 Page 5 of 5