Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00557/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00557-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORLANDO MARTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-00557 ALA P

vs.

ALVARO C. TRAQUINA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On December 20, 2007, Defendant filed a motion to modify the Pretrial Order. 

Specifically, Defendant requests that the Court: (1) vacate the January 23, 2008, trial date; (2)

grant Defendant 90 days to conduct discovery of Plaintiff’s two witnesses, Dr. Chin and Dr.

Dwayne Highsmith; and (3) grant Defendant 30 days after discovery of these two witnesses

closes to file and serve a dispositive motion.

Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court may modify

the [final pretrial] order issued after a pretrial conference only to prevent manifest injustice.” 

“Under this principle, a pre-trial order ‘is not an inexorable decree and may, under proper

circumstances, be modified.’” Angle v. Sky Chef, Inc., 535 F.2d 492, 495 (9th Cir. 1976)

(explaining that “[i]n the exercise of sound judicial administration and the interest of justice, ‘an

amendment of a pre-trial order should be permitted where no substantial injury will be

Case 2:05-cv-00557-ALA Document 86 Filed 12/26/07 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

2

occasioned to the opposing party, the refusal to allow the amendment might result in injustice to

the movant, and the inconvenience to the court is slight.’”) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s

motion to amend his pre-trial statement to add two witnesses, Dr. Chin and Dr. Dwayne

Highsmith, was granted on December 17, 2007. It is in the interest of justice to allow Defendant

the opportunity to conduct discovery concerning these two new witnesses. Because Plaintiff

recently identified these two witnesses, there is no prejudice to Plaintiff to allow Defendant to

conduct discovery.

Good cause appearing, the Court grants Defendant’s motion. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

(1) The January 23, 2008, trial date is vacated. The writ of habeas corpus ad

testificandum issued for the trial is also hereby vacated.

(2) The January 8, 2008, trial confirmation hearing is hereby vacated. The writ of

habeas corpus ad testificandum via video conferencing issued for the trial

confirmation hearing is also vacated.

(3) Defendant has 90 days from the date of this order to conduct discovery of

Plaintiff’s two witnesses, Dr. Chin and Dr. Dwayne Highsmith.

(4) Defendant has 120 days from the date of this order to file and serve a dispositive

motion related to discovery of Plaintiff’s two witnesses, Dr. Chin and Dr. Dwayne

Highsmith.

/////

DATED: December 21, 2007

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:05-cv-00557-ALA Document 86 Filed 12/26/07 Page 2 of 2