Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00397/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00397-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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 Unless otherwise indicated, all references herein to

Rules are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERIE WHITE, )

) NO. 2:04-cv-397-GEB-CMK

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

)

CINEMARK USA, INC., dba )

CINEMARK MOVIES 8, )

) 

Defendant. )

)

At the final pretrial conference held on August 22, 2005,

Plaintiff was questioned about the reconsideration motion she filed

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).1 As stated at the

hearing, the reconsideration motion is untimely because it was

noticed for hearing after the last hearing date prescribed in the

Rule 16 Scheduling Order for law and motion matters. See U.S.

Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099,

1104 (9th Cir. 1985) (affirming district court's denial of untimely

motion since "pretrial order controls the subsequent course of

action unless modified by a subsequent order"), rejected on

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 116 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 10
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 Therefore, the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration is vacated. 

2

other grounds, Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174

(9th Cir. 1995); Dedge v. Kendrick, 849 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir. 1988)

(same); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608

(9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Rule 16 for the proposition that a

scheduling order “shall not be modified except by leave of . . .

the district court upon a showing of good cause”); In re San Juan

Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 111 F.3d 220, 228 (1st Cir. 1997)

(indicating that counsel are required to assist the trial judge in

setting fixed workable litigation deadlines early in the action “or

bear the reasonably foreseeable consequences for their failure to

do so.”).

Assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider

was timely noticed for hearing and that the denial of summary

judgment constitutes a “judgment” within the meaning of Rule 59(e),

the reconsideration motion is denied. “Under Rule 59(e), a motion

for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an

intervening change in the controlling law." 389 Orange Street

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing

School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

1993)). Plaintiff has not presented arguments or evidence

compelling the finding that any of the above circumstances

necessitate reconsideration.2

However, Plaintiff did make an argument at the final

pretrial conference that indicates clarification of a portion of

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 116 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 10
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 The parties also have leave to set forth their agreements

on any evidentiary matters in the Stipulation.

3

the ruling Plaintiff sought to have reconsidered could aid the

parties. Specifically, Plaintiff argued that “Card’s measurements

of the theater . . . contained in his initial disclosure” should

not have been stricken. Since Plaintiff had previously stated in

her points and authorities in support of her Rule 59(e) motion to

reconsider that “the court didn’t strike” the measurement portion

of Card’s testimony, it appears that Plaintiff considers the ruling

ambiguous on this point. To eliminate any ambiguity, Card’s

measurements which were disclosed before the discovery completion

date are not stricken. 

I. JURY/NON-JURY

All issues shall be tried to the bench. 

II. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

Any evidentiary dispute capable of being resolved in

limine shall be addressed using the following procedure. Counsel

for the parties are required to meet and confer about the dispute. 

If the meeting fails to resolve the dispute, the parties are to set

forth their respective positions on the dispute in a document

entitled "Stipulation Re: Evidentiary Disagreements," that shall

be signed by counsel for the parties and filed no later than 4:30

p.m. on September 27, 2005.3 

In the Stipulation, after the movant states the legal and

factual basis for opposing admission of a clearly-identified,

specific item of evidence, the nonmovant shall state its position.

Failure to state a basis for admissibility or non-admissibility of

disputed evidence constitutes a waiver or abandonment of that

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 116 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 10
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 Although Defendant argues certain relief sought by

Plaintiff should be excluded as a trial issue, the correctness of

Defendant’s position is unclear at this point. However, it does

appear that Plaintiff is raising an issue or issues which she lacks

standing to litigate, and this matter should be addressed in the

parties’ trial briefs and proposed findings and conclusions.

4

basis. If the same argument or a portion thereof applies to a

dispute over other evidence, that argument may be incorporated by

reference where that other disputed evidence is argued. 

 This procedure is intended to expedite the trial by

allowing the judge to understand the factual context involving

disputed evidence and to make binding pretrial rulings. The

parties are cautioned that failure to utilize this procedure to

resolve an evidentiary issue which is capable of resolution in an

in limine motion may be deemed a waiver of objection to such

evidence, or could result in a ruling excluding the evidence. 

III. FACTUAL, LEGAL AND/OR EQUITABLE CONTENTIONS

A. The Final Pretrial Order supersedes the pleadings

and controls the facts and claims which may be presented at trial. 

Any legal theory of relief or affirmative defense asserted in the

pleadings but not preserved for trial in this section of the Final

Pretrial Order cannot be raised during the trial. Hotel Emp., et

al. Health Tr. v. Elks Lodge 1450, 827 F.2d 1324, 1329 (9th Cir.

1987) (“Issues not preserved in the pretrial order are eliminated

from the action.”).

B. The following issues are preserved for trial: 

1. The relief Plaintiff seeks is in the parties’

Joint Pretrial Statement (“JPS”) commencing on page 15, line 11, to

and including line 33 on page 17.4

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 116 Filed 08/25/05 Page 4 of 10
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

2. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s requested

injunctive relief concerns modifications that are not readily

achievable.

C. In addition to the matters set forth in Local Rule

16-285, the parties shall brief the following points of law in

their trial briefs. 

1. The elements, standards, and burdens of proof as

to each of Plaintiff's claims, including citations of authority in

support thereof.

2. The elements, standards, and burdens of proof

as to each of Defendant's defenses, including citations of

authority in support thereof.

Notwithstanding Local Rule 16-285, trial briefs shall be

filed with the Court no later than 4:30 p.m. on September 27, 2005. 

A joint or partial joint trial brief is permitted. All legal

positions briefed in the trial brief shall be supported with case

and applicable statutory authority. See Local Rule 16-285. If

separate or partial separate trial briefs are submitted, responding

briefs, if any, shall be filed with the Court no later than

October 11, 2005. The trial brief(s) must include “a summary of

points of law, including reasonably anticipated disputes concerning

admissibility of evidence, legal arguments, and citations of

authority in support thereof.” Local Rule 16-285(a)(3).

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 116 Filed 08/25/05 Page 5 of 10
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 Plaintiff struck Michael P. Gibbens from her witness list

at the final pretrial conference.

6

IV. WITNESSES

A. Plaintiff expects to call as witnesses, either in

person or by deposition, some or all of the persons listed in her

attachment to the JPS.5

B. Defendant expects to call as witnesses, either in

person or by deposition, some or all of the persons listed in its

attachment to the JPS. 

C. Each party may call a witness designated by the

other.

D. No person, other than those named on these witness

lists, will be permitted to testify unless:

(1) The party offering the witness demonstrates that

the witness is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could

not reasonably be anticipated at the pretrial conference; or

(2) The witness was discovered after the pretrial

conference and the proffering party makes the showing required in

"E", below.

E. If a witness is discovered after the pretrial

conference, counsel for the party offering the witness shall

promptly inform the Court and opposing parties of the existence of

the unlisted witness so that the Court may consider at trial

whether the witness shall be permitted to testify. The witness

will be not be permitted to testify unless:

(1) The witness could not reasonably have been

discovered prior to pretrial;

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 116 Filed 08/25/05 Page 6 of 10
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

(2) The Court and opposing counsel were promptly

notified upon discovery of the witness;

(3) If time permitted, counsel offered the witness

for deposition; and

(4) If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of

the witness' testimony was provided to opposing counsel.

V. EXHIBITS

A. Plaintiff intends to offer in evidence the exhibits

described in her attachment to the JPS. 

B. Defendant intends to offer in evidence the exhibits

described in its attachment to the JPS. 

C. No other exhibits will be permitted to be introduced

unless:

(1) The party seeking to use the unlisted exhibit

demonstrates that the exhibit is for impeachment;

(2) The party seeking to use the unlisted exhibit

demonstrates that the exhibit is being used to rebut evidence which

could not reasonably have been anticipated at the pretrial

conference; or

(3) The unlisted exhibit was discovered after the

pretrial conference and the offering party makes the showing

required in paragraph "D", below.

D. Any party proposing to introduce an exhibit which was

discovered after the pretrial conference shall promptly notify the

Court and opposing counsel of the existence of such exhibit. The

Court will not permit any such exhibit to be introduced unless it

finds:

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 116 Filed 08/25/05 Page 7 of 10
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 The parties have leave to file joint exhibits. The above

procedure is designed for separate exhibits.

8

(1) That the exhibit could not reasonably have been

discovered prior to the pretrial conference;

(2) The Court and counsel were promptly informed of

the exhibit's existence; and

(3) That the offering party has delivered a copy of

the exhibit to opposing counsel, or, if the exhibit may not be

copied, that the offering counsel has made the exhibit reasonably

available for inspection by opposing counsel. 

E. Plaintiff's exhibits shall be numbered and marked

with colored stickers provided by the Court while Defendant's

exhibits shall be designated by alphabetical letter also marked

with colored stickers provided by the Court. To obtain stickers,

parties should contact the Clerk of Court at (916) 930-4000.

The parties are directed to exchange with each other, no

later than September 27, 2005, copies of all of their respective

exhibits, marked with exhibit stickers provided by the Court. No

later than October 4, 2005, each party shall file with the Court

and serve upon opposing counsel objections, if any, to the

exhibits, referencing the exhibits as marked by exhibit sticker and

specifying the basis for each objection.6 Failure to exchange

exhibits as ordered could result in the exhibit not being used at

trial and/or the imposition of sanctions. The failure to make

objections in the manner prescribed by this section shall

constitute a waiver of objections. A party seeking to admit into

evidence an exhibit to which no objection was made must identify

said exhibit for the record and then move it into evidence. 

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 116 Filed 08/25/05 Page 8 of 10
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

Counsel shall produce all exhibits to the Clerk's Office

on the Friday before the before trial date, no later than 4:00 p.m. 

At that time, the parties shall also furnish the Court with a copy

of each exhibit, unless the exhibit is physically incapable of

being reproduced. Failure to produce exhibits as ordered could

result in waiver of the right to offer those exhibits. Each party

submitting exhibits shall furnish a list to the Court, the

courtroom deputy and opposing counsel itemizing the exhibits. 

VI. FURTHER PREPARATION FOR USE OF DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

A. It is the duty of counsel to ensure that any

depositions which are to be used at trial for any purpose shall

have been filed with the clerk, and counsel are cautioned that a

failure to discharge this duty may result in preclusion of the use

of the unfiled depositions or in the imposition of such other

sanctions as the Court deems appropriate.

B. No later than September 27, 2005, counsel for each

party shall serve on the other parties a statement designating all

answers to interrogatories and all portions of depositions (except

for passages to be used solely for refreshing recollection,

impeachment or rebuttal). No later than October 11, 2005, counterdesignations of other portions of these discovery documents may be

served. No later than October 26, 2005, the parties shall file and

serve any preserved evidentiary objections to any designated

discovery, or said objections are waived.

C. Any deposition or parts thereof shall be submitted as

an exhibit with a cover sheet explaining which objections, if any,

are waived. Accordingly, deposition passages need not be read into

the record.

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 116 Filed 08/25/05 Page 9 of 10
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

VII. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

Pursuant to the Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order, all

discovery and law and motion was to have been completed prior to

the date of the final pretrial conference. That order is

confirmed. The parties are, of course, free to conduct any

additional discovery they desire pursuant to informal agreement. 

However, any such agreement will not be enforceable in this Court.

VIII. PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Each party shall submit proposed prevailing party

findings and conclusions no later than October 11, 2005. FAILURE

TO DO SO DISMISSES, WAIVES, OR ABANDONS THAT ISSUE, CLAIM OR

DEFENSE. The parties may supplement timely-submitted proposed

findings and conclusions as trial progresses, up until closing

arguments.

IX. TRIAL DATE

Trial is set for October 25, 2005. At the pretrial

conference the parties estimated the trial will take two (2) days

to complete. A trial day will commence at 9:00 a.m. and will

adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m. Counsel are to call Shani

Furstenau, Courtroom Deputy, at (916) 930-4114, one week prior to

trial to ascertain the status of the trial date.

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 ANY PARTY OR PARTIES WHO CAUSE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS

ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: August 24, 2005 /s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 116 Filed 08/25/05 Page 10 of 10