Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01593/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01593-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Isabella Comanche, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States of America,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-1593-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This is the time set for the Final Pretrial Conference. Plaintiff is represented

telephonically by counsel, David J. Martin. Defendant is represented by counsel, Richard

G. Patrick. Neither counsel requests that the oral argument on Defendant's Motion In Limine

(docket # 26) be electronically recorded. Court reporter is not present.

The Court and counsel informally discuss the Amended Joint Proposed Final

Pretrial Order, previously lodged with the Court on March 3, 2006, which meets with the

Court’s overall approval. Counsel are directed to have all witnesses properly subpoenaed,

available and prepared to testify immediately after the prior witness is excused so that no

court time is wasted and the trial completed as scheduled. 

The subject bench trial will be held in Courtroom 302, Sandra Day O’Connor

U.S. Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona, beginning on Wednesday,

March 22, 2006 and concluding no later than Thursday, March 23, 2006. Unless

otherwise ordered, time for each trial day shall be from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and from

Case 2:04-cv-01593-LOA Document 40 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Counsel shall be at the courthouse every day by 9:30 a.m. and 1:15

p.m. in the event matters need to be discussed and the trial is not delayed thereby.

Plaintiff's counsel advises he still has a trial date conflict with a state juvenile

dependency matter in Gila County (Case No. MD2005-073). He informs the Court that he

has a status conference set this Thursday, March 9, 2006 with Superior Court Judge Robert

Duber in the dependency matter in which the trial date will be discussed. Plaintiff's counsel

is instructed to file a motion to continue this federal civil trial on or before 5:00 p.m. on

Friday, March 10, 2006 if the juvenile matter has not or will not be continued as it has, in

the undersigned's opinion, a higher priority than a civil action for damages in federal court

even though this federal matter was likely scheduled for trial before the juvenile matter was.

Defense counsel invokes the Rule of Exclusion of Witnesses. Counsel, and

each of them, shall instruct all of their actual and potential witnesses of the Rule and its

application to every witness, party and/or parties’ representative prior to the Court’s in-court

instruction of the Rule. Counsel shall provide to all other counsel by either a written fax or

e-mail a list of the witnesses who will or may be called by that counsel on the next trial day

by 6:00 p.m. of the previous trial day. Plaintiff's counsel shall give notice to adverse counsel

by 6:00 p.m. on Monday, March 20, 2006, which witnesses or parties he intends to call for

examination on the first day of trial and the time he chooses to call the witness.

Oral argument is held on Defendant's Motion In Limine (docket # 26).

Defendant argues that under existing Ninth Circuit and Arizona authorities, the fact that a

party was issued a citation by the automobile accident's investigating DPS officer is

inadmissible hearsay, is not relevant and, if relevant, the prejudicial value outweighs such

relevance. Hill v. Rolleri, 615 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1980); Ingrum v. Tucson Yellow Cab Co.,

131 Ariz.523, 642 P.2d 868 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). Plaintiff's counsel argues that permitting

the police officer to testify as to which party s/he cited "simply completes the story relative

to Officer Stephenson's observations and galvanizes his conclusions." Response, Dkt # 34,

Case 2:04-cv-01593-LOA Document 40 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 4
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 Plaintiff's counsel is advised that the better practice is to number each page of each

pleading. There is pending for approval by the district judges a proposed Local Rule

requiring the numbering of pages. At this time, it is not a mandatory practice.

- 3 -

last page.1

 Plaintiff's counsel also argues that since this trial will be one to the Court, there

is no likelihood there would be any undue prejudice to Defendant because the Court can

disregard the fact that a party's employee was cited by the investigating police officer. No

legal authority is provided to support Plaintiff's arguments. The motion will be granted.

IT IS ORDERED adopting in its entirety, as if fully set forth herein, the

Amended Joint Final Pretrial Order signed by the Court and counsel herein and filed with the

Clerk this date.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all exhibits for the trial shall be premarked by counsel or counsel’s representative and presented to the Magistrate Courtroom

Clerk (“MCC”), Ms. Sherise Marshall, by no later than 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 22,

2006 in accordance with the written instructions that have been provided to counsel by the

courtroom clerk. The MCC may be reached at (602) 322-7238 during business hours for

scheduling and discussion purposes. All exhibits shall be exchanged between the parties

prior to presenting them to the MCC. Duplicate exhibits shall not be presented to the MCC.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16(e) and 37(c), the Court will not allow the parties to modify the Joint Final Pretrial Order

or introduce at trial any exhibits, witnesses, or other information or to make any objections

to exhibits that were not previously specified and/or disclosed as directed by the Court in the

Amended Joint Final Pretrial Order, except to prevent manifest injustice. Byrd v. Guess,

137 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 1998).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall keep the Court apprised

of the possibility of settlement and/or resolution by agreement of any pending issues to avoid

unnecessary preparation by the Court. If a settlement be reached, the parties shall

immediately file a Notice of Settlement with the Clerk of the Court with a copy to this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion In Limine (docket #

26) is GRANTED. Whether a party was issued a citation is inadmissible hearsay and, if

Case 2:04-cv-01593-LOA Document 40 Filed 03/07/06 Page 3 of 4
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 -

relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the prejudice of its introduction

in evidence under Rule 403, Fed. R. Evid. Additionally, the Rules of Evidence should be

interpreted consistently and uniformly by the district court regardless if it is a jury trial or not.

Uniformity breeds predictability which is an important public policy for conducting trials 

Unless Defendant, a defense witness or defense counsel opens the door,

Plaintiff, her attorney and witnesses are hereby prohibited from questioning, commenting

upon or introducing in the trial of this matter any evidence or information related, directly

or indirectly, to the fact that Defendant's employee was cited for the subject accident. 

Court's staff shall immediately fax a copy of this Order to counsel of record.

DATED this 6th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01593-LOA Document 40 Filed 03/07/06 Page 4 of 4