Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00386-20/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Introduction

On March 9, 2015, Defendants Clark and Rivas, filed a Motion to Amend the Pretrial Order 

(Doc. 57) requesting that an additional witness be permitted to testify at trial. (Doc. 101). Plaintiff has 

not filed an opposition. Upon a review of the pleading, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

II. Discussion

This case is set for trial on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. Defendants have filed a 

motion to amend the pretrial order so that an additional witness, Lieutenant Cruz, can be permitted to 

testify at trial. Defendants contend that Lieutenant Cruz was involved in the adjudication of 

Plaintiff’s inmate appeal related to his claims of excessive use of force. They assert that a complete

JOHNATHAN HILL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. CLARK and A. RIVAS, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-386-EPG

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO AMEND THE PRETRIAL ORDER

(Doc. 101)

Case 1:13-cv-00386-EPG Document 106 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

copy of the appeal and the related confidential staff inquiry was given to Plaintiff during discovery, 

and these documents were also identified in their pretrial statement. Plaintiff also received copies as 

part of Defendants’ trial exhibits on February 16, 2016. Defendants contend that the omission of this 

witnesses in their pretrial statement was inadvertent, and that there is no prejudice to Plaintiff since he 

is in possession of the documents related to Lieutentant Cruz’s testimony.

Generally, the Pretrial Order controls and it may not be modified absent a showing of necessity 

to prevent manifest injustice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d), (e); Local Rule 283(c); Hunt v. County of Orange, 

672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012). The following factors are considered in determining whether to 

modify the Amended Pretrial Order: (1) degree of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party; (2) the 

ability of the opposing party to cure any prejudice; (3) the impact of the modification on the orderly 

and efficient conduct of the case; and (4) any degree of willfulness or bad faith on the part of the party 

requesting the amendment. Hunt, 672 F.3d at 616 (quotation marks and citation omitted); Galdamez v. 

Potter, 415 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Here, all of the parties are in possession of the documents that relate to Lieutenant Cruz’s 

testimony, therefore, there will be no prejudice or surprise in the litigation of the case. Moreover, 

Lieutenant Cruz’s testimony is relevant to the issues that will be raised at trial and the omission 

appears to be inadvertent. Finally, Plaintiff has not opposed the request. Accordingly, in order to 

prevent manifest injustice, the Defendants’ Motion to Amend the Pretrial Order to include Lieutenant 

Cruz as a witness (Doc. 101) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00386-EPG Document 106 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 2