Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981-48/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

MARGIE CHERRY and ESTORIA CHERRY,

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO

(“City College”) LAWRENCE WONG, in his

official capacity as President of the Board of

Trustees, MILTON MARKS, III, in his official

capacity as Vice-President of the Board of

Trustees, DR. NATALIE BERG, JOHNNIE

CARTER, JR., DR. ANITA GRIER, JULIO J.

RAMOS, RODEL E. RODIS, in their official

capacities as members of the Board of

Trustees, and DR. PHILIP R. RAY, JR., in his

official capacity as Chancellor,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-04981 WHA

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

A bench trial will commence on FEBRUARY 13, 2006 AT 7:30 A.M. It will last

approximately three weeks, starting each day at 7:30 A.M. and ending at 1:00 P.M., five days per

week.

The trial shall be bifurcated into four segments: (i) The six concededly “new” facilities

and their compliance (or not) with ADAAG, (ii) The extent to which any other facilities are

new and/or altered so as to be subject to ADAAG, (iii) As to those found subject to ADAAG in

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 597 Filed 01/31/06 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

segment (ii), their compliance (or not) with ADAAG, and (iv) Whether the “existing” facilities

give rise to a program violation.

For the first segment, the order of proof shall be rearranged so that the Rosenberg

Library is considered first and, more specifically, the following sub-issues as to the Rosenberg

Library:

(i) all exterior doors

(ii) all interior doors

(iii) all ramps

(iv) all paths of travel

(v) all hallways

(vi) all restrooms

(vii) all water fountains

(viii) all telephones

(ix) all knee clearances (not included above)

(x) all reach ranges (not included above).

Opposing experts or fact witnesses will testify back-to-back with the Court making its findings

as to compliance after each of the ten subcategories. If necessary, experts regarding field

tolerances may testify but only insofar as their testimony directly bears on the sub-issue.

After the Rosenberg Library, we will proceed to the other five concededly “new”

facilities and do the same sub-issues and order of proof. We will address those five buildings in

the following order: the 500 Bungalows, the 600 bungalows, the 700 Bungalows (if necessary),

the stadium press box and EOPS.

At the start of each trial day, please provide a one to three page set of proposed findings

to be made that trial day.

With respect to segment four (concerning existing facilities), the trial will proceed in the

conventional order of proof. Time limits will be set.

* * *

Defense counsel must submit a final proposed order regarding defendants’ admitted

violations by no later than today, JANUARY 31, 2006.

The parties must submit joint proposed orders encapsulating the Court’s rulings on the

parties’ motions in limine by no later than FEBRUARY 8, 2006 AT NOON.

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 597 Filed 01/31/06 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

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. 

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 31, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 597 Filed 01/31/06 Page 3 of 3