Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-00266/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-00266-6/pdf.json

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

---

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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

PLANS, INC.,

NO. CIV. S-98-266 FCD EFB

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SACRAMENTO UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, TWIN RIDGES

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This case comes before the court on plaintiff PLANS, Inc.’s

(“plaintiff”) motion to augment its trial exhibit list,

previously included with the court’s final pretrial conference

order, and which governed the initial trial in this matter.1

(Docket #229.) On September 28, 2005, the court entered judgment

Case 2:98-cv-00266-FCD-EFB Document 314 Filed 04/19/10 Page 1 of 5
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

in favor of defendant Sacramento City Unified School District

(“SCUSD”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c), on

the ground plaintiff failed to meet its evidentiary burden to

establish that anthroposophy is a religion for purposes of the

Establishment Clause. On November 21, 2007, the Ninth Circuit

reversed this court’s judgment, finding that the court erred in

excluding certain witnesses’ percipient testimony. The Ninth

Circuit held that “because [plaintiff] intended to call [Betty

Staley, Crystal Olsen and Robert Anderson] . . . as percipient

witnesses, it did not need to comply with the court’s deadline

for expert disclosures.” (Docket #281.) This court had found

that the subject witnesses’ proffered testimony was expert

opinion, and having failed to timely disclose the testimony,

plaintiff was precluded from offering it at trial. The Ninth

Circuit disagreed, and further emphasized that there was no

prejudice to SCUSD because plaintiff had disclosed the witnesses

as early as January 2001 and the district, itself, had designated

the witnesses as experts. (Id.)

Following the remand, this court granted defendant Twin

Ridges Elementary School District’s motion to dismiss, leaving

SCUSD as the sole defendant. (Docket #295 [dismissing Twin

Ridges since as of June 30, 2007, it ceased chartering any

Waldorf method public schools].) Following this order, filed

March 4, 2008, there was no activity in the case until May 29,

2009, when plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney, replacing

Scott Kendall with Donald Michael Bush. The parties thereafter

requested extensions of time to file a joint status conference

statement. The court held a status conference on December 11,

Case 2:98-cv-00266-FCD-EFB Document 314 Filed 04/19/10 Page 2 of 5
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 Said dates were subsequently modified by Minute Order

of April 12, 2010 (Docket #313) due to plaintiff’s request to

continue the final pretrial conference date.

3

2009.

At that conference, the court set (1) a further final

pretrial conference; (2) a trial date for Phase I of the trial

(to determine whether anthroposophy is a religion for

Establishment Clause purposes); and (3) a hearing date, in

advance of trial, for the parties’ motions in limine. (Docket

#306.)2 Plaintiff indicated that it may wish to move the court

to reopen discovery to permit plaintiff to modify its proffered

witnesses and evidence for trial. The court emphasized that the

Ninth Circuit’s remand order only permitted plaintiff to offer at

trial the percipient testimony of Staley, Olsen and Anderson; it

did not permit plaintiff to reopen discovery or otherwise modify

the court’s prior final pretrial conference order. The court

directed that if plaintiff sought any such actions, it must file

an appropriate motion under Rule 16.

By the instant motion, plaintiff does not seek to reopen

discovery but rather requests permission to modify its trial

exhibit list to delete certain original exhibits and add other

documents in support of its position that anthroposophy is a

religion. At this juncture, the court will permit plaintiff to

modify its exhibit list, as typically, the court does not render

any rulings with respect to proffered exhibits until trial. In

preparing their joint final pretrial conference statement,

parties submit with the statement their expected witnesses and

trial exhibits, which the court simply attaches as exhibits to

Case 2:98-cv-00266-FCD-EFB Document 314 Filed 04/19/10 Page 3 of 5
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

4

its final pretrial conference order. (See e.g. Docket #229.) 

Thereafter, at the time of trial, normally during the hearing on

motions in limine, the court rules on any objections to the

parties’ respective witnesses and trial exhibits. The court will

follow its typical procedures in this case as well.

Therefore, both parties may file with their joint pretrial

conference statement amended witness and exhibit lists. Each

side may later object to the witnesses or exhibits, including on

the ground that the testimony and/or exhibit was not disclosed

during the course of discovery, at the time of the hearing on the

parties’ motions in limine. Where appropriate, the parties shall

file separate motions in limine directed at specific evidence,

supported by a memorandum of points and authorities. At that

point, on full briefing, the court can properly consider possible

evidentiary objections, including relevancy, hearsay and

authentication. 

Pursuant to the court’s Minute Order of April 12, 2010

motions in limine will be heard on August 13, 2010, and trial of

Phase I will commence on August 31, 2010. At the December 2009

status conference, the court directed the parties to summarize,

in their joint final pretrial conference statement, each witness’

expected testimony, including any percipient testimony and/or

expert opinion. To facilitate the court’s ruling on any

objections to the trial exhibits, the court orders the parties to

exchange all trial exhibits on or before August 2, 2010. If a

party moves to exclude any exhibit, it shall submit a copy of the

subject exhibit with its motion in limine. Provision of the

parties’ final, trial exhibit binders will be as directed in the 

Case 2:98-cv-00266-FCD-EFB Document 314 Filed 04/19/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

court’s final pretrial conference order, which shall issue

following the conference set for June 25, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 19, 2010

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:98-cv-00266-FCD-EFB Document 314 Filed 04/19/10 Page 5 of 5