Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264-32/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

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

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“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 proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

claim of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Gonzales1and 

Murrieta arising out of an alleged assault following the takedown by Defendant Gonzales on June 9, 

2008. A jury trial is set for April 28, 2015. 

On March 4, 2015, the Court issued its final Pretrial Order in this action. (ECF No. 139.) The 

Pretrial Order provides that no exhibit, other than those listed in the Pretrial Order, may be admitted 

unless the parties stipulate or upon a showing that the Pretrial Order should be modified to prevent 

manifest injustice. (ECF No. 139, p. 9.) 

 

1

 Defendant was sued as “L. Gonzalez.” 

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

L. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-01264-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

MODIFY THE PRETRIAL ORDER TO ALLOW 

DEFENDANTS TO DESIGNATE TWO 

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 149.) 

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 160 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 3
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

On March 30, 2015, Defendants filed the instant motion to modify the Pretrial Order to allow 

them to designate two additional exhibits. (ECF No. 149.) The Court finds a response unnecessary 

and the motion is deemed submitted.2 Local Rule 230(l). 

In this action, 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 Pretrial Order: (1) degree of prejudice or surprise to Plaintiff; (2) the ability of 

Plaintiff 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 Defendants. Hunt, 672 F.3d at 

616; Galdamez v. Potter, 415 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Although the factors at issue weigh in favor of amending the Pretrial Order, the Court finds it 

unnecessary in this instance. According to Defendants’ moving papers, the intended exhibits are 

solely “for impeachment purposes.” (ECF No. 149, p. 3.) Evidence offered at trial “solely for 

impeachment purposes does not need to be identified in the pretrial order or disclosed prior to trial.” 

Fresno Rock Taco, LLC v. National Sur. Corp., 2013 WL 3803911, *4 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2013) 

(discussing exemption from disclosure of impeachment evidence) (emphasis in original); cf. New 

York Life Ins. Co. v. Morales, 2008 WL 2622875, *4 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2008) (witnesses used solely 

for impeachment are exempt from pretrial disclosure); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A) (exempting 

evidence to be used solely for impeachment from pretrial disclosure requirement). The exhibits at 

issue here are: (a) a copy of inmate Mario Madrid’s segregation record (CDC Form 114-A) for June 

9, 2008; and (b) a copy of inmate Hayward Mayhan’s segregation record (CDC Form 114-A) for June 

9, 2008. (ECF No. 149, p. 3.) Defendants expect Plaintiff will call inmates Mario Madrid and 

Hayward Mayhan to testify as witnesses to the events at issue on the recreation yard. Defendants 

therefore intend to use the segregation records to demonstrate that these two inmate witnesses were 

not present on Facility 4B exercise yard on the day in question and almost certainly did not witness the 

 

2

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the inability as the Court intends to deny the motion, without prejudice, as 

unnecessary. 

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 160 Filed 04/06/15 Page 2 of 3
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

escort at issue. (ECF No. 49, p. 2-3; Declaration of Timothy H. Delgado ¶¶ 6-7.) As Defendants 

intend to use these documents solely for impeachment purposes, they need not be identified in the 

Pretrial Order and may be used at trial subject to the rules of evidence. Accordingly, Defendants’ 

motion to modify the Pretrial Order, filed on March 30, 2015, is HEREBY DENIED without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 160 Filed 04/06/15 Page 3 of 3