Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02016/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02016-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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 This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J. GARY KERNS, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:08-cv-02016-GEB-KJM

)

v. ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

) MOTION TO AMEND FINAL

THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE ) PRETRIAL ORDER*

INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Plaintiff moves to amend the final pretrial order to add

Doctor Leroi B. Gardner as trial witness. Plaintiff failed to 

include Dr. Gardner as a witness in the parties’ joint pretrial

statement filed on June 21, 2010. The list of witnesses in the joint

pretrial statement was incorporated into the final pretrial order,

which was filed on June 25, 2010. Trial was originally scheduled to

commence on August 3, 2010; however, in an minute order filed July 16,

2010 trial was rescheduled to commence on November 16, 2010, “[d]ue to

conflicts in the court’s trial calendar.” (Docket No. 48.) Defendant

opposes Plaintiff’s motion, arguing it “reasonably and justifiably

relied on [P]laintiff’s witness and exhibit list to prepare for

trial.” (Opp’n 5:7-8.) 

Case 2:08-cv-02016-GEB -KJM Document 53 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 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

2

A final pretrial order may be modified under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 16(e)“to prevent manifest injustice.” Factors

considered under this standard include: “(1) the degree of prejudice

or surprise to the defendants if the order is modified; (2) the

ability of the defendants to cure the prejudice; (3) any impact of

modification on the orderly and efficient conduct of the trial; and

(4) any willfulness or bad faith by the party seeking modification.” 

Galdamez v. Potter, 415 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005).

These factors favor granting Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff

disclosed Dr. Gardner as an expert witness on October 9, 2009;

Defendant deposed Dr. Gardner on February 4, 2010; and Plaintiff

attached a declaration of Dr. Gardner in support of its opposition to

Defendant’s summary judgment motion. (Haydel Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.) Further,

since the trial commencement date has been continued Defendant has

additional time to prepare for what it anticipates will be Dr.

Gardner’s trial testimony, and to take whatever action it considers

necessary under the final pretrial order. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

motion to amend the final pretrial order to include Dr. Gardner as a

witness is GRANTED.

Dated: August 23, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-02016-GEB -KJM Document 53 Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 2