Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04944/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04944-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN CIVITELLO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FIRST CREDIT OF AMERICA, INC.,

JOHN DOE, an individual, DOE ABC

COMPANY, and DOES 3 through 20,

inclusive,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-04944 WHA

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

FOR GOOD CAUSE and after a final pretrial conference, the Court issues the

following final pretrial order: 

1. This case shall go to a JURY TRIAL on FEBRUARY 5, 2007, at 7:30 A.M., and shall

continue until completed on the schedule discussed at the conference. The issues to be tried

shall be those set forth in the joint proposed pretrial order except to the extent modified by order

in limine. This final pretrial order supersedes all the complaint, answer and any counterclaims,

cross-claims or third-party complaints, i.e., only the issues expressly identified for trial remain

in the case. 

2. The rulings on defendant’s objections to plaintiff’s failure to comply with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 are as follows:

(a) The objections to Christopher Civitello, Julia Civitello,

Ellie Mellul, Ana de la Borda and Marcus Segal are OVERRULED. 

(b) The objection to Thomas Schueneman is SUSTAINED.

Case 3:05-cv-04944-WHA Document 38 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 2
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

(c) The objection to Nir Darmoni is SUSTAINED, subject to a showing

of good cause that Darmoni’s testimony is necessary. 

3. Except for good cause, each party is limited to the witnesses and exhibits

disclosed in the joint proposed final pretrial order less any excluded or limited by an order

in limine. Materials or witnesses used solely for impeachment need not be disclosed and may be

used, subject to the rules of evidence. 

4. The stipulations of facts set forth in the joint proposed final pretrial order are

approved and binding on all parties. 

5. A jury of EIGHT PERSONS shall be used. 

6. Each side shall have SIX HOURS to examine witnesses (counting direct

examination, cross-examination, re-direct examination, re-cross examination, etc.). 

Opening statements and closing arguments shall not count against the limit. In setting this limit,

the Court has carefully considered the witness summaries provided for the final pretrial

conference. Counsel had been directed to specify for each witness all non-cumulative testimony. 

Conclusory and repetitive proffers were made instead. Counsel wholly failed to justify the

lengthy time estimates requested. The Court nonetheless did the best it could with the

information given. It also drew on its experience in presiding over cases of similar complexity

and the Court’s earlier 25 years in trial practice as a lawyer. Finally, the Court took into account

the competing demands on the Court’s calendar and the need to reduce the burden on the

members of the jury who will decide the case. The limits are subject to enlargement but only on

the “safety-valve” terms explained at the final pretrial conference. 

7. The parties shall follow the Court's current Guidelines for Trial and

Final Pretrial Conference, separately provided and available on the Internet at

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, which guidelines are incorporated as part of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04944-WHA Document 38 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2