Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01016/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01016-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

FREDERICK JACKSON, ASHLEY NICOLE

JACKSON, a minor, BRIANA FREDRANIQUE

ANNETTE JACKSON, a minor, and SHAWN

YVETTE MARTIN, 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF PITTSBURG, AARON L. BAKER,

individually and in his official capacity as Chief of

Police of the City of Pittsburg Police Department,

G. LOMBARDI, individually and as an officer of the

City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge # 275), C.

SMITH, individually and as an officer of the City of

Pittsburg Police Department (Badge # 285),

P. DUMPA, individually and as an officer of the

City of Pittsburg Police Department (Bade # 291),

WILLIAM BLAKE HATCHER, individually and as

an officer of the City of Pittsburg Police Department

(Badge # 274), and DOES 1–100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01016 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 JULY 12, 2010, 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,

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 171 Filed 07/08/10 Page 1 of 3
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

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

in the case. 

2. Rulings on the motions in limine shall be summarized jointly by counsel and

submitted by JULY 9, 2010, AT NOON. 

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 8 PERSONS shall be used. 

6. Each side shall have 12 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. If, despite being

efficient, non-duplicative, and non-argumentative in the use of the allotted time, one side runs

out of time and it would be a miscarriage of justice to hold that side to the limit, then more time

will be allotted. 

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.

8. The motion to file a second amended complaint is granted and the current answer

will be deemed the answer thereto.

9. Each side may submit by JULY 8, 2010, AT 5 PM., briefing of up to 5 pages

regarding the effect (if any) on this matter of the recent Ninth Circuit decision, Bryan v.

Macpherson, 2010 WL 2431482 (June 18, 2010).

10. By JULY 9, 2010, AT NOON, the parties shall submit revised expert reports in

proper form.

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 171 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

11. Plaintiffs shall submit by JULY 8, 2010, AT 5 PM., a written explanation of no

more than 5 pages regarding why they should be permitted to call their witness Pamela Jackson

even though she was not timely disclosed. Defendants shall submit a reply of no more than 5

pages by JULY 9, 2010, AT 5 P.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 171 Filed 07/08/10 Page 3 of 3