Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00342/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00342-36/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELROY W. BROWNING, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JEANNE WOODFORD et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-0342 AWI NEW (DLB) P

PRETRIAL ORDER

Motions In Limine Hearing:

November 6, 2007

8:30 a.m., Courtroom 2

 

Trial: November 6, 2007

9:00 a.m., Courtroom 2

Plaintiff Elroy W. Browning (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed March 11, 2005, against Defendants for subjecting Plaintiff to

conditions of confinement that violated the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, this action is

proceeding against Defendants Lopez, Castro, and Jackson on Plaintiff’s claim that they

exercised excessive force when Plaintiff was sprayed with OC pepper spray in his cell on April 9,

2004. 

The parties have submitted pretrial statements. On September 24, 2007, the court held a

Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing. After considering the parties’ pretrial statements, the

file, and the statements made during the Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing, the court issues

this Pretrial Order.

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 1 of 20
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

I. Jurisdiction and Venue

The court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this federal civil rights

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper because the conduct allegedly occurred in

this judicial district.

II. Jury Trial

All parties request a trial by jury. This action shall be tried by a jury of eight.

III. Facts

A. Undisputed Facts

1. Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). At all times relevant to this

action, Plaintiff was housed at the California State Prison – Corcoran,

California (“CSP-Corcoran”). 

2. On April 1, 2004, a state of emergency was declared, and CSP-Corcoran began

operating under lock-down conditions.

3. On April 9, 2004, Plaintiff was housed in cell 3C02-208 CSP-Corcoran

(“cell 208").

4. On April 9, 2004, Sergeant Castro was supervising the controlled morning

feeding in building 3CO2. Officers Jackson and Lopez were floor officers

in building 3CO2. Officer Para was the control booth officer in building

3CO2.

5. At approximately 10:15 a.m. Defendant Castro went to cell 208. Defendant

Castro stated that Plaintiff and Inmate Stephens should not kick on the cell

door. Defendant Castro then called Defendant Jackson over to the cell. 

6. Defendant Castro ordered Defendant Jackson to open the cell about twelve

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 20
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

inches. Defendant Jackson then administered O.C. pepper spray into the

cell, hitting both Plaintiff and Inmate Stephens. The cell door was then

closed.

7. Defendant Castro again ordered the cell door opened and directed Defendant

Jackson to use the pepper spray again.

8. After the second pepper spray, both Plaintiff and Inmate Stephens were in a prone

position on the floor. 

9. Defendant Castro ordered the cell door opened and ordered Defendant Jackson

and Defendant Lopez, along with other officers, to place Plaintiff and Inmate

Stephens in handcuffs. Plaintiff and Inmate Stephens complied with staff when

being handcuffed and removed from the cell.

10. Defendant Lopez placed Inmate Stephens in restraints and together with

Defendant Jackson escorted him to the Upper “A” section shower.

11. Defendant Lopez and Defendant Jackson then returned to the cell, placed Plaintiff

in restraints and escorted him to the Lower “A” section shower. 

12. The showers were turned on.

Plaintiff’s Additional Proposed Undisputed Facts

a. The reason for the state of emergency was that on April 1, 2004, a riot

took place inside the dining hall within the Level IV 3C Facility between

Southern Hispanic inmates and White inmates. Prior to this event, on

March 13, 2004, a Black inmate had attempted to murder two correctional

officers within the 3B visiting room. 

b. The April 9, 2004 incident began during morning feeding. When

officers arrived at Plaintiff’s cell, Defendant Jackson directed Plaintiff to

lay on his upper bunk on his stomach facing the cell window. Defendant

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 3 of 20
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

Jackson directed Plaintiff’s cell mate, Inmate Stephens, to sit at the desk

stool facing the cell door with both hands in plain view. While

Defendant Jackson monitored the inmates movements, the other custody

staff arrived and issued only one breakfast tray. They then closed the

door.

c. After receiving only one breakfast tray, Inmate Stephens attempted to gain

the attention of prison officials. Staff disregarded Inmate Stephens’ call

for another tray. At this time, Defendant Castro was standing in the

middle of the day room. 

d. Plaintiff was found not guilty of the disciplinary charges that stemmed

from this incident.

Defendant’s Additional Proposed Undisputed Facts

a. At approximately 10:15 a.m., on April 9, 2004, loud banging and

yelling was heard coming from cell 208. 

b. Defendant Castro and Defendant Parra observed Plaintiff and Inmate

Stephens kicking on the door of their cell door. 

c. The purpose of pepper spray is to temporarily impair an inmate’s

vision and make it difficult for him to breathe, causing him to

become disoriented and unable to continue his resistance. 

d. Plaintiff suffered the irritation associated with exposure to O. C.

pepper spray, but was not observed to have suffered any physical

injuries or respiratory distress. 

e. Defendant Lopez was not involved in this incident until after the last

use of pepper spray. Defendant Lopez did not become involved

until he and Defendant Jackson removed Plaintiff from his cell, and

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 4 of 20
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

escorted him to his decontamination shower.

B. Disputed Facts

1. Whether when Defendant Castro arrived at the cell Inmate Stephens explained

that the only issue was that they needed another breakfast tray.

2. Whether after Defendant Castro arrived, Plaintiff and Inmate Stephens continued

to kick on their cell and did not stop even when Defendant Castro ordered them to

stop.

3. Whether Plaintiff and Inmate Stephens were kicking their door with such force

that the retention chain on the door was shaking violently, the door was

moving and appeared to be coming off of the structural track, causing

Defendant Castro to fear that the continued kicking would compromise the

integrity of the door.

4. Whether Plaintiff and Inmate Stephens were on the floor with their backs to the

door, with white cloths around their noses and mouths when Defendant Castro

and Defendant Jackson arrived.

5. Whether Defendant Jackson administered a burst of O.C. pepper spry, hitting both

inmates in the upper torso area, or whether Defendant Jackson saturated the

inmates in their facial area.

6. Whether Plaintiff and Inmate Stephens kicked the door and disregarded orders to

get into the prone position after the first administration of O.C. pepper spray. 

7. Whether Plaintiff and Inmate Stephens were in the prone position on the floor, in

compliance with orders, or whether they were still not in a prone position when

Officer Jackson sprayed the O.C. pepper spray the second time.

8. Whether Plaintiff and Inmate Stephens were saturated with O.C. pepper spray or

whether Defendant Jackson sprayed both inmates in the upper torso and facial

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 5 of 20
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 6

area with a four-second burst of pepper spray.

9. Whether Plaintiff was properly decontaminated. Whether during the

decontamination process the showers were turned on with hot water when

decontamination procedure calls for cold water. Whether Plaintiff was rehoused

in the cell while it still contained pepper spray.

10. Whether there was a need for the use of some force against Plaintiff because he

had become disruptive during lock-down conditions under a state of emergency.

11. Whether the amount of force used was reasonably related to the need for force. 

12. Whether the absence of any serious injury resulting from the incident indicates

that the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,

and was not applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.

13. Whether Defendants wrote a false report to cover up any misconduct.

14. The nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injury, and the amount of Plaintiff’s

compensatory damages, if any. 

15. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages, and the amount of any punitive

damages.

C. Disputed Evidentiary Issues

1. Should Plaintiff or any other incarcerated witnesses testify, Defendants will

seek to impeach such witnesses by presenting evidence of prior felony

convictions and/or specific instances of conduct demonstrating a propensity

to lie.

2. Defendants will object to the testimony of any witnesses not listed in

Plaintiff’s pretrial statement.

3. Defendants believe the listed incarcerated witnesses are cumulative and

irrelevant to the issues of this matter.

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 6 of 20
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 7

4. Defendants will raise the issue of Plaintiff’s lack of a medical expert. 

Defendants claim expert medical testimony is necessary to establish the

nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff has not identified any expert

medical witnesses, and there is nothing in the record indicating that he is

qualified as an expert medical witness. In the absence of proof from a

medical expert, Defendants contend that Plaintiff lacks competent medical

expertise to offer opinions or inferences as to the nature and extent of

Plaintiff’s injury.

Defendants concede that Plaintiff can testify as to what he

experienced as a result of his accident. In addition, Defendants will offer as

trial exhibits Plaintiff’s medical records for the relevant periods. However,

Defendants contend that Plaintiff should be precluded from offering any

opinions or inferences to be drawn from these records.

5. Defendants point out that Plaintiff has listed discovery materials and

declarations of the Defendants as exhibits. Defendants request that these

discovery material be used only to the extent permitted by the rules of

evidence.

IV. Relief Sought

The complaint requests $500,000.00 in compensatory damages and $1,600,000.00 in

punitive damages.

Defendants seek judgment in their favor and their costs of this action.

V. Points of Law

The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment protects prisoners

from cruel and unusual punishment. “[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 7 of 20
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 8

excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core

judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore

discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7

(1992). “In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it may also be

proper to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the

amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts

made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). “The absence of serious injury is . . . relevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry, but

does not end it.” Id. 

“What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual

Punishments Clause [of the Eighth Amendment] depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson,

503 U.S. at 8. “The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is . . . contextual and

responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always violates contemporary

standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is evident. Id. at 9; see also

Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth Amendment excessive force standard

examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis injuries)). However, not “every malevolent

touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9. “The

Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments necessarily excludes from

constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not

of a sort ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Id. at 9-10 (internal quotations marks and

citations omitted). 

Punitive damages are appropriate in a section 1983 action “‘when the defendant's conduct

is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous

indifference to the federally protected rights of others.’” Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Dept.,

901 F.2d 702, 707 (9 Cir.1989) (quoting Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1971)). 

th

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 8 of 20
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 9

VI. Abandoned Issues

None.

VII. Witnesses

The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including

rebuttal and impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS

SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON

A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST

INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 16-281(b)(10).

A. Plaintiff’s Witnesses

1. C.O. F. Mariscal

2. Lieutenant L.L. Wood

3. Dr. Enenmoh

4. Inmate Stephens, D-61914

5. Inmate Nall, P-25352

6. Inmate Hook, T-08976

7. Inmate Taylor, J-75560

8. Inmate Tower, P-10003

9. Inmate Blackwell, E-72399

10. Inmate Richards, C-27962

11. Plaintiff Elroy Browning

As to Plaintiff’s proposed incarcerated witness, and order accompanying this order

addresses Plaintiff’s motion for incarcerated witnesses.

As to Plaintiff’s proposed un-incarcerated witnesses, the court has received Plaintiff’s

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 9 of 20
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 10

subpoenas and money orders. The court has directed the United States Marshals to serve the

subpoenas on the un-incarcerated witness. 

Plaintiff remains free to call any un-incarcerated witness listed above who voluntarily

appears at trial. Plaintiff may also cross-examine any witness that Defendant calls to testify.

B. Defendants’ Witnesses

1. Correctional Sergeant C. Castro.

2. Correctional Officer M. Lopez.

3. Correctional Officer C. L. Jackson. 

4. Correctional Officer A. Parra.

VIII. Exhibits

The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties expect to offer at

trial. NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE

ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS

ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(e); Local Rule 16-281(b)(11).

A. Plaintiff’s Exhibits

1. Portions of Title 15 attached to Plaintiff’s Pretrial Statement.

2. Plaintiff’s opposition and Defendants reply to the supplemental production of

documents, and related documents.

3. Inmate Stephens’ Administrative Appeal, Log Number 04-1371.

4. Memorandum by A.K. Scribner, CSP-Corcoran Warden, entitled Door Kicking

Policy Rescission, Dated August 16, 2004.

5. Plaintiff’s Medical Records attached to Plaintiff’s Pretrial Statement.

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 10 of 20
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 11

` 6. RN Protocol’s attached to Plaintiff’s Pretrial Statement, including RN Protocol for

Asthma/Bronchospasm dated December 2003; RN Protocol for Respiratory

Distress dated December 2003; RN Protocol for Respiratory Arrest dated January

2002; RN Protocol for Rhinitis/Pharyngitis dated December 2003.

B. Defendants’ Exhibits

1. Incident Report Log #COR-03C-04-04-0219, dated April 9, 2004.

IX. Discovery Documents To Be Used At Trial (Answers To Interrogatories And

Responses To Requests For Admissions)

None Listed.

X. Further Discovery or Motions

None.

If any party intends to file motions in limine, the procedure and time requirements are set

forth below.

Even though discovery is closed, all parties are reminded of their continuing obligation to

update all discovery responses previously made if that party becomes aware of new information

or becomes aware that an answer in a previous response is incomplete or incorrect. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(e)(2).

XI. Stipulations

Defendants have offered to stipulate to the undisputed facts listed in Defendants’ pretrial

statement.

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 11 of 20
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 12

XII. Amendments/Dismissals

None.

XIII. Settlement Negotiations

None.

If the partes both agree a settlement conference would be of assistance, the parties are

directed to contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck at (559) 499-5670 to

schedule a settlement conference.

XIV. Agreed Statement

No party has stated that a presentation of some or all of the evidence by agreed statement

is feasible or advisable.

XV. Separate Trial Of Issues

No party requests a separate trial of issues.

As is this court’s custom, the court will bifurcate the issue of punitive damages.

XVI. Impartial Experts - Limitation Of Experts

No party believes a court appointed expert or a limitation of experts is necessary.

XVII. Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiff may not seek attorney's fees. See Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 435-37 (1991).

XVIII. Further Trial Preparation

A. Motions In Limine Hearing and Briefing Schedule

Any party may file a motion in limine. The purpose of a motion in limine is to establish

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 12 of 20
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 13

in advance of the trial that certain evidence should not be offered at trial. Although the Federal

Rules do not explicitly provide for the filing of motions in limine, the court has the inherent

power to hear and decide such motions as a function of its duty to expeditiously manage trials by

eliminating evidence that is clearly inadmissible for any purpose. Luce v. United States, 469

U.S. 38, 41 n. 4 (1984); Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F. 3d 436, 440 (7th

Cir. 1997). The court will grant a motion in limine, and thereby bar use of the evidence in

question, only if the moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is not admissible for any

valid purpose. Id.; Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400

(N.D. Ill. 1993).

All motions in limine must be served on the other party or parties, and filed with the

court, by 4:00 p.m. on October 9, 2007. Any motion in limine must clearly identify the nature of

the evidence that the moving party seeks to prohibit the other side from offering at trial.

Any opposition to a motion in limine must be served on the other party or parties, and

filed with the court, by 4:00 p.m. on October 23, 2007.

Any reply must be filed by 4:00 p.m. on October 30, 2007.

If any party files a motion in limine, the court will hear and decide such motions on the

morning of trial, November 6, 2007, at 8:30 a.m.

Whether or not a party files a motion in limine, that party may still object to the

introduction of evidence during the trial.

B. Trial Briefs

The parties may file an optional trial brief by October 23, 2007. See Local Rule 16-285. 

The parties need not include in the Trial Brief any issue that is adequately addressed in a motion

in limine, or in an opposition brief to a motion in limine.

Any response to a trial brief may be filed by October 30, 2007.

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 13 of 20
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 14

C. Duty to Pre-Mark Exhibits

If the parties have not already done so, the parties are ordered to exchange exhibits and

pre-mark their exhibits by October 5, 2007. All joint exhibits must be pre-marked with numbers

preceded by the designation JT/-- (e.g., JT/1, JT/2). All of Plaintiffs’ exhibits shall be premarked with numbers. All of Defendants’ exhibits shall be pre-marked with letters.

1. Counsel shall create four (4) complete, legible sets of exhibits in binders as follows:

(a) Two sets of binders to be delivered to Courtroom Clerk Harold Nazaroff by

April 12, 2007, one for use by the Courtroom Clerk and the other for the court;

and

(b) One set for each side’s own use.

If the parties desire, they may have a fifth set of binders to be used for the purposes of

questioning witnesses.

2. Counsel for Defendant and Plaintiff are to confer and make the following

determination with respect to each proposed exhibit to be introduced into evidence, and to

prepare separate indexes - one listing joint exhibits, and one listing each party’s separate exhibits:

(a) Duplicate exhibits, i.e., documents which both sides desire to introduce into

evidence, shall be marked as a joint exhibit, and numbered as directed above. 

Joint exhibits shall be listed on a separate index, and shall be admitted into

evidence on the motion of any party, without further foundation.

(b) As to exhibits that are not jointly offered, and to which there is no objection to

introduction, those exhibits will likewise be appropriately marked, e.g., Plaintiff’s

Exhibit 1 or Defendant’s Exhibit A, and shall be listed in the offering party’s

index in a column entitled “Admitted In Evidence.” Such exhibits will be

admitted upon introduction and motion of the party, without further foundation.

(c) Those exhibits to which the only objection is a lack of foundation shall be

marked appropriately, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2 - For Identification, or

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 14 of 20
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 15

Defendants’ Exhibit B - For Identification, and indexed in a column entitled

“Objection Foundation.”

(d) Remaining exhibits as to which there are objections to admissibility not solely

based on a lack of foundation shall likewise be marked appropriately, e.g.,

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3 - For Identification or Defendants’ Exhibit C - For

Identification, and indexed in a third column entitled “Other Objection” on the

offering party’s index.

 3. Each separate index shall consist of the exhibit number or letter, a brief description

of the exhibit, and the three columns outlined above, as demonstrated in the example below:

 

INDEX OF EXHIBITS 

 ADMITTED OBJECTION OTHER 

 EXHIBIT # DESCRIPTION IN EVIDENCE FOUNDATION OBJECTION

Two sets of the completed joint index and the separate indexes shall be delivered to the

Courtroom Clerk with the two sets of binders by 4:00 p.m. on November 1, 2007.

The court has no objection to counsel using copies. However, the copies must be legible. 

If any document is offered into evidence that is partially illegible, the court may sua sponte

exclude it from evidence.

D. Morning Conferences During Trial

During the trial, it is the obligation of Defendant’s counsel and Plaintiff to meet with the

court each morning to advise the court and opposing counsel as to what documents are proposed

to be put into evidence that have not previously been admitted by stipulation, court order, or

otherwise ruled upon. The court will rule on those documents, to the extent possible, prior to the

commencement of trial each day out of the presence of the jury. If the ruling depends upon the

receipt of testimony, the court will rule as requested upon the receipt of such testimony.

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 15 of 20
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 16

The court shall consider any other legal matter at morning conferences as well. The court

does not wish to recess the trial to hear legal argument outside of the presence of the jury, and

proper preparation by the parties will eliminate the need for that result.

E. Order Of Witnesses

In order to make the trial operate efficiently and smoothly, Defendant’s counsel and

Plaintiff have the continuing obligation to advise opposing counsel as to what witnesses he or she

intends to call at each trial session.

F. Proposed Jury Instructions

The parties shall file and serve proposed jury instructions by 4:00 p.m. on November 1,

2007. Counsel for Defendant must also provide Defendant’s proposed jury instruction on a 3-

1/2 inch computer disc, preferably formatted for WordPerfect 10, and e-mail them to: 

awiorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

All proposed jury instructions shall be in duplicate. One set shall indicate the party

proposing the instruction, with each instruction numbered or lettered, shall cite supporting

authority, and shall include the customary “Given, Given as Modified, or Refused,” showing the

court’s action with regard to each instruction. The other set shall be an exact copy of the first set,

but shall be a “clean” copy that does not contain the identification of the offering party,

instruction number or letter, supporting authority, or reference to the court’s disposition of the

proposed instruction.

G. Proposed Verdict Form

The parties shall file and serve a proposed verdict form by 4:00 p.m. on November 1,

2007. 

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 16 of 20
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 17

H. Voir Dire

The parties may file and serve proposed voir dire questions, if any, by 4:00 p.m. on

November 1, 2007.

Further, in order to aid the court in the proper voir dire examination of the prospective

jurors, the parties should lodge with the court on the first morning of trial a list of all prospective

witnesses, including rebuttal witnesses, that counsel reasonably expect to call. The purpose of

the lists is to advise the prospective jurors of possible witnesses to determine if a prospective

juror is familiar with any potential witness.

I. Use Of Videotape and Computers 

Any party wishing to use a videotape for any purpose during trial shall lodge a copy of the

videotape with the Courtroom Clerk by 4:00 p.m. on November 1, 2007. If a written transcript of

audible words on the tape is available, the court requests that the transcript be lodged with the

court, solely for the aid of the court.

If counsel intends to use a laptop computer for presentation of evidence, they shall

contact the courtroom deputy clerk at least one week prior to trial. The courtroom deputy clerk

will then arrange a time for counsel to bring the laptop to the courtroom, and meet with a

representative of the Information and Technology Department and receive a brief training session

on how counsel’s equipment interacts with the court’s audio/visual equipment. If counsel

intends to use PowerPoint, the resolution should be set no higher than 1024 x 768 when

preparing the presentation. 

J. Agreed Summary Of The Case

The parties file a joint agreed summary of the case, briefly outlining the positions of the

parties by 4:00 p.m. on November 1, 2007. The summary will be read to the jury panel at the

outset of the trial solely for the purposes of assisting in the jury selection process. The contents

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 17 of 20
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 18

of the summary shall not be deemed to be evidence or an admission or stipulation by a party as to

any contested fact or issue.

XIX. Objections to Pretrial Order

Any party may, within ten calendar days after the date of service of this Order, file and

serve written objections to any of the provisions of this Order. Such objections shall specify the

requested modifications, corrections, additions or deletions.

XX. Rules of Conduct During Trial

A. General Rules

1. All participants in the trial shall conduct themselves in a civil manner. 

There shall be no hostile interchanges between any of the participants.

2. All oral presentations shall be made from the podium, unless otherwise

permitted by the court.

3. Sidebar conferences are discouraged. Legal arguments or discussion of

issues outside the presence of the jury should be done during recesses.

4. Counsel shall advise their respective clients and witnesses not to discuss

any aspect of the case in the common areas of the courthouse accessible to

the jurors, such as the lobby, the elevators, the hallways and the cafeteria.

B. Jury Selection

1. The court will conduct voir dire to be supplemented by any written

questions submitted by counsel prior to trial and after the court has

concluded its questioning of the jury panel. In some circumstances, the

court may allow brief direct questioning by counsel.

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 18 of 20
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 19

C. Opening Statements

1. Counsel may use visual aids in presenting the opening statement. However,

any proposed visual aids shall be shown to opposing counsel before

opening statement.

D. Case in Chief

1. Counsel shall have his/her witnesses readily available to testify so that there

are no delays in the presentation of evidence to the trier of fact.

2. At the close of each trial day, counsel shall disclose his/her anticipated

witnesses and order of presentation for the next day, so that any scheduling

or evidentiary issues may be raised at that time.

E. Witnesses

1. Before approaching a witness, counsel shall secure leave of court to

approach the witness.

2. Before approaching a witness with a writing, counsel shall first show the

writing to opposing counsel.

F. Exhibits

1. All exhibits shall be marked and identified in accordance with the

instructions in the Pretrial Order.

2. An exhibit shall not be published to the jury until it has been admitted into

evidence and counsel has secured leave of court to publish the exhibit.

3. The court usually will conduct an on the record review of the exhibits that

have been admitted in evidence at the conclusion of each party’s case in

chief and after each party has rested its entire case.

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 19 of 20
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 20

G. Objections

1. No speaking objections or arguments are permitted in the presence of the

jury. Counsel shall state the specific legal ground(s) for the objection, and

the court will rule based upon the ground(s) stated. The court will permit

counsel to argue the matter at the next recess.

2. The court will not assume that any objection made also implies with it a

motion to strike an answer that has been given. Therefore, counsel who has

made an objection, and who also wishes to have an answer stricken, shall

also specifically move to strike the answer.

H. Closing Argument

1. Counsel may use visual aids in presenting the closing argument. However,

any proposed visual aids shall be shown to opposing counsel before closing

argument.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY BE

GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL

AS WELL AS ON ANY PARTY WHO CAUSES NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 112 Filed 09/25/07 Page 20 of 20