Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05817/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05817-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSH THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHENS-LYMAN, DENNY, 

CAETANA, AND TURNER, 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC TRIAL

SETTING HEARING

ORDER REINSTATING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND TRIAL

MOTIONS, SETTING JURY TRIAL AND

MOTIONS IN LIMINE DATES, CLARIFYING

RECORD REGARDING STIPULATION, AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL (Doc. 223)

Motions in Limine: July 9, 2007

Oppositions to 

Motions in Limine: July 31, 2007

Telephonic Motions

in Limine Hearing: September 5, 2007, at 8:30

a.m. in Courtroom 4 (LJO)

Jury Trial: October 9, 2007, at 8:30

a.m. in Courtroom 4 (LJO)

A telephonic trial setting hearing was held in this matter on June 11, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.

before the undersigned. Present by telephone were Deputy Attorney General Barry Alves,

representing defendants Stephens-Lyman, Denny, Caetana, and Turner, and pro se plaintiff Josh

Thomas.

Pursuant to plaintiff’s verbal motion, plaintiff’s previously filed motions in limine and

miscellaneous trial motions, which were denied without prejudice to refiling by Judge Ishii on

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 265 Filed 06/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 Defendants are not limited to re-filing only those motions in limine previously denied without prejudice by 1

Judge Ishii.

 Judge Snyder conducted the settlement conference in this case. The parties may voluntarily waive any 2

resulting conflict and have this case tried by Judge Snyder, but are not required to do so.

2

September 26, 2006, are reinstated. (Doc. 230.) The deadline for defendants to file their motions

limine is July 9, 2007, and the deadline for either side to file oppositions to motions in limine is July

31, 2007. A telephonic hearing on motions in limine will be held on September 5, 2007, at 8:30 1

a.m. before the undersigned. Jury trial is set for October 9, 2007, at 8:30 a.m. before the undersigned

in Courtroom 4.

At this juncture, it appears the parties are not agreeable to consenting to Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction. As explained during the hearing, the undersigned cannot guarantee the trial date given

to the parties because the District Judges’ trial calendars are double and triple set with trials. A

Magistrate Judge will most likely be able to guarantee the parties a trial date and ensure the

resolution of this case sooner. If the parties change their minds regarding consent to either

Magistrate Judge Snyder or Magistrate Judge Beck, the parties shall notify the Court as soon as

possible. 

2

As discussed during the hearing, the record is hereby clarified to reflect that the parties have

stipulated to the authenticity of defendants’ trial exhibits, which were provided to plaintiff for

review, and the custodian of records is therefore not required to appear at trial.

Plaintiff’s exhibit list was not timely submitted. (Doc. 211.) In addition, as plaintiff was

informed by the undersigned during the hearing, the exhibit list largely consists of documents which

may not be introduced into evidence, such as the pleadings, defendants’ pretrial statement,

defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the Court’s Findings and Recommendations. (Id.)

As set forth in hearing, plaintiff should review the Federal Rules of Evidence prior to trial regarding

the proper use of declarations and responses to interrogatories. As explained to plaintiff, such

documents may be used to impeach witnesses, for example, but may not simply be entered into

evidence for the jury to view.

///

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 265 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Finally, the discovery deadline was June 17, 2003. (Doc. 82.) A review of the record reveals

that plaintiff filed a motion to compel on September 6, 2006. (Doc. 223.) The motion is untimely

and is denied on that ground.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s previously filed motions in limine and trial motions, denied without

prejudice by Judge Ishii on September 26, 2006, are REINSTATED on plaintiff’s

verbal motion made during the hearing;

2. Defendants shall file their motions in limine on or before July 9, 2007;

3. Oppositions to motions in limine are due on or before July 31, 2007;

4. A telephonic motions in limine hearing is set for September 5, 2007, at 8:30 a.m. in

Courtroom 4 before the undersigned;

5. Defendants’ counsel shall arrange for the participation of plaintiff at the hearing and

shall initiate the call to (559) 499-5680;

6. Jury trial is set for October 9, 2007, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before the

undersigned;

7. The record is clarified to reflect that the parties have stipulated to the authenticity of

defendants’ trial exhibits, and the custodian of records is therefore not required to

appear at trial; and

8. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on September 6, 2006, is DENIED as untimely.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 265 Filed 06/11/07 Page 3 of 3