Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02175/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02175-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES TIMMONS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________/

No. 2:05-cv-02175-MCE-EFB

AMENDED FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

TRIAL DATE: August 2, 2010

TIME: 9:00 a.m.

Pursuant to Court Order, a Final Pretrial Conference was

held on June 11, 2010. Jill Telfer appeared as counsel for

Plaintiff. Jeff Grube and Jeff Michalowski appeared as counsel

for Defendant. After hearing, the Court makes the following

findings and orders: 

I. JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. section 1332 and

42 U.S.C. section 12100 et seq. Jurisdiction and venue are not

contested. 

II. JURY

Plaintiff timely demanded a jury trial pursuant to

Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 24
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

III. UNDISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES

1. UPS operates a package delivery business.

2. UPS hired Plaintiff Charles Timmons in the early

1980’s. UPS hired Timmons as a part time preloader and he worked

in that position until April 1, 1986.

3. Timmons began working for UPS as a fulltime package car

driver on April 1, 1986.

4. At all times during his employment with UPS, Timmons

worked out of UPS’s Chico facility.

5. The Chico facility is one of approximately twenty-five

facilities in what was then UPS’s Sacramento Valley District.

6. What was then the Sacramento Valley District was within

UPS’s former Pacific Region, which reported to UPS’s Corporate

Headquarters. At all times relevant, there were nine UPS regions

within the United States.

7. In 2004, Timmons reported to the Preload Supervisor of

the Chico facility, Paul Rickson, as his immediate supervisor. 

Rickson reported to Chico Business Manager Joe Kuhn. Kuhn

managed approximately 135 employees at the Chico facility. 

During part of that time Kuhn reported to Danny Moss.

8. There are approximately fifty package cars at the Chico

facility at one time with approximately eight types of package

cars.

9. UPS maintains several different sizes of package cars,

from P-200 to P-1200; the package car names reflect the volume

capacity of each vehicle. For example, P-500 package cars have

500 cubic feet of space. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 24
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

10. Timmons developed injuries based on cumulative trauma

over the years he worked for UPS.

11. Timmons suffered physical injuries which limited his

ability to, among other things, lift, sit for extended periods of

time and drive package cars with manual transmission which did

not have power steering. 

12. UPS granted Timmons a leave of absence from June 29,

2004, to October 12, 2004 for Timmons’ foot and hernia surgeries.

13. In 2002, Timmons voluntarily bid on, and received the

Magalia route. The Magalia route was a rural route near Chico,

California. He continued to drive the Magalia Route until his

leave of absence in June 2004. 

14. The P-320 package car driven on the Magalia Route from

2002 through 2004 had automatic transmission, power steering and

a seat with lumbar support. 

15. The P-500 package car did not have automatic

transmission, power steering or a seat with lumbar support.

16. The P-500 could contain a higher volume of packages

than the P-320. 

17. When Timmons returned from leave on October 12, 2004,

he asked UPS to remove the P-500 package car from his route and

allow him to use the P-320 package car, which had power steering,

automatic transmission and a seat with lumbar support.

18. UPS was presented with a doctor’s note on October 15,

2004 that restricted Timmons to driving a package car with power

steering and automatic transmission.

19. Timmons began a leave of absence on November 19, 2004.

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 24
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

20. On March 18, 2005, Timmons sent UPS a letter again

requesting to drive a package car with power steering and

automatic transmission on his route.

21. On March 25, 2005, UPS sent a letter to Timmons asking

him to submit medical information regarding his disability.

22. On April 8, 2005, Dr. Krone responded to UPS’s request

for medical information.

23. Timmons obtained his real estate license in October

2005.

24. In November 2005, Timmons began working as a real

estate agent for Century 21.

25. At the time of Timmons’s retirement, on January 1,

2006, his UPS hourly rate was $26.45.

IV. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES

The remaining claims for trial are:

1. Package car drivers-the familiar brown-suited UPS

employees work alone during most of their days delivering

packages in brown UPS delivery trucks, known as “package cars.” 

2. Management in each UPS facility assigns package cars to

routes based primarily on the volume of packages delivered and

picked up, mileage, and terrain. Routes with heavier volume

demand larger capacity package cars. 

3. At all times during his employment with UPS, Plaintiff

was a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

(“Teamsters”).

4. At all times during his employment with UPS,

Plaintiff’s employment was subject to the collective bargaining

agreement (“CBA”) between UPS and the Teamsters. 

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 4 of 24
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

The operative “CBA” at all relevant times consisted of the

National Master United Parcel Service Agreement and the Northern

California Supplemental Agreement and Northern California Sort

Rider, for August 1, 2002 through July 31, 2008.

5. UPS does not assign drivers to package car delivery

routes. Routes are bid upon by drivers and awarded based on

seniority, according to the CBA.

6. UPS would be in violation of the CBA if it assigns a

particular driver to a route without posting the route for

possible bid by more-senior drivers. 

7. UPS hired Plaintiff on March 1, 1982. 

8. Plaintiff’s union seniority date for bidding purposes

is April 1, 1986 (the date he became a full-time package driver).

9. Plaintiff suffered significant injuries in a 1979

motorcycle accident and, over time, he developed a degenerative

rotator cuff condition and other debilitating injuries including: 

(1) disorders of bursae and tendons in the shoulder region; (2)

sciatica, which is swelling in the sacroiliac joints with pain

radiating down; (3) arthritis in several areas including

shoulders, hips, knees and ankles; (4) generalized osteoarthritis

in multiple joints; (5) tendonitis in the elbows and shoulders;

and (6) chronic left piriformis (hip) muscle strain. These

conditions made lifting packages, driving a vehicle, and

performing his other package car driver job duties painful for

him. 

10. On April 9, 2004, Plaintiff told his primary care

physician, Dr. Krone, that he could retire in January 2006. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 5 of 24
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

11. The Magalia route covers largely rural terrain, with

narrow roads that have sharp turns and trees with low hanging

branches.

12. Preceding 2004, the volume of packages on the Magalia

route had increased.

13. In 2004, the volume of packages on the Magalia route

continued to increase. 

14. In July 2004, during Plaintiff’s time off work for

surgery, UPS replaced the P-320 package car that was assigned to

his route with a larger package car the P-500.

15. UPS replaced the P-320 package car on the Magalia route

because, at that time, the P-320 regularly could not contain all

of the packages delivered on the route.

16. On days when the P-320 package car could not contain

the volume of packages on the Magalia route, UPS had to arrange

for an employee to shuttle packages out to the route (after some

packages had been delivered) or require the driver on the

adjacent route to deliver packages from the Magalia route. 

17. Like the P-320, the P-500 could navigate the rough

terrain and narrow roads of the rural Magalia route.

18. After UPS assigned a P-500 package car to the Magalia

route, it rarely had to shuttle packages to the Magalia route

driver or shift packages onto the adjacent route.

19. When Plaintiff returned from leave on October 12, 2004,

he returned with a full release to work with no restrictions.

20. October 15, 2004 is the first time Plaintiff presented

UPS with work restrictions during the entire time he drove the

Magalia route.

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 6 of 24
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

21. UPS determined, in October 2004, that none of its

package cars with power steering and automatic transmission were

appropriate for the package volume on the Magalia route.

22. The CBA, which governed the terms of Plaintiff’s

employment, provided that Plaintiff could bid on and obtain an

available position only based on his seniority.

23. UPS determined, in October 2004, that it had no

available routes for which Plaintiff had the seniority to bid

successfully that utilized package cars with power steering and

automatic transmission.

24. UPS determined, in October 2004, that it could not

place the P-320 package car back on the Magalia route, because

the P-320 was too small to handle the package volume on the

route. 

25. From October 18, 2004 through November 18, 2004, UPS

accommodated Plaintiff’s driving restriction by providing him

with temporary light-duty work at full pay and benefits.

26. According to its workers’ compensation program governed

by the CBA, UPS provides light duty work for up to twenty-nine

days. 

27. The essential functions of Plaintiff’s package car

driver position included lifting packages to heights above the

shoulder, lowering packages to foot level, lifting packages

weighing on average 12 pounds and up to 70 pounds, and assisting

in moving packages up to 150 pounds. 

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 7 of 24
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

28. The essential functions of Plaintiff’s package car

driver position included bending, stooping, squatting, crouching,

climbing, standing, walking, turning and pivoting for up to 9.5

hours per day, 5 days per week.

29. In Dr. Krone’s opinion, from November 18, 2004 to

August 11, 2005 (during Plaintiff’s leave of absence), Plaintiff

should not have been climbing in and out of a package car for

more than six hours per day, due to his knee condition.

30. Dr. Krone advised Plaintiff, between October 2004 and

November 2005, that he should not continue working as a UPS

package car driver due to his health condition.

31. On December 6, 2004, Plaintiff’s primary care

physician, Dr. Krone, completed an Employment Development

Department (“EDD”) Claim for Disability Benefits form on which

she stated that Plaintiff had been incapable of performing his

regular work as of November 18, 2004, Dr. Krone anticipated

Plaintiff could return to his customary work on May 1, 2005, and

“Patient is currently told not to lift more than 10 lbs at a

time.”

32. During his leave of absence, Plaintiff collected

disability payments from UPS’s short-term and long-term

disability plans, from the State of California and from his

private disability insurance companies.

33. On November 25, 2004, Plaintiff called his union and

reported his retirement date of January 1, 2006. 

34. In December 2004, Plaintiff began a course of study

toward obtaining a real estate license for a new career in the

real estate field.

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 8 of 24
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

35. In March 2005, UPS had no available routes for which

Plaintiff had the seniority to bid successfully that utilized

package cars with power steering and automatic transmission.

36. On March 28, 2005, Dr. Krone completed an EDD Request

For Additional Medical Information Form stating that Plaintiff

could not lift more than ten pounds and would not be able to

perform his regular work until September 25, 2005.

37. On April 8, 2005, Dr. Krone sent a form to UPS stating

(1) Plaintiff could not lift anything heavier than twenty pounds

until July 8, 2005, and (2) could not lift any weight overhead on

a permanent basis.

38. It is Dr. Krone’s medical opinion that as of April 8,

2005, Plaintiff permanently could not lift packages weighing up

to seventy pounds, with an average weight of twelve pounds.

39. On April 8, 2005, Dr. Krone completed a Supplemental

Disability Statement Form for Plaintiff’s insurance company,

certifying that Plaintiff was totally disabled and unable to

perform his regular occupation between November 18, 2004 and

October 1, 2005, and stating that Plaintiff could not lift ten

pounds, stand more than one hour, or walk more than two blocks.

40. On June 16, 2005, Dr. Krone completed a Supplemental

Disability Statement Form for Plaintiff’s insurance company,

certifying that Plaintiff was totally disabled and unable to

perform his regular occupation between November 18, 2004, and

October 1, 2005, and stating that Plaintiff could not lift weight

greater than fifteen pounds, stand more than one hour, or bend at

the knees.

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 9 of 24
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

41. On July 26, 2005, UPS Workforce Planning Manager Rick

Dugan met with Plaintiff via telephone to discuss Plaintiff’s

medical restrictions. 

42. On August 12, 2005, Dugan informed Plaintiff of a route

coming available that had a P-700 package car. 

43. At the time Dugan informed Plaintiff of the route with

the P-700 package car, UPS’s Chico facility had P-700 package

cars with automatic transmission and power steering.

44. If Plaintiff bid the route Dugan proposed, UPS planned

to ensure the route had a P-700 package car with automatic

transmission and power steering.

45. On August 12, 2005, Plaintiff told Dugan, that he had

no interest in bidding on the proposed route with the P-700

package car.

46. On August 12, 2005, Plaintiff rejected the proposed

route accommodation because he recently had knee surgery

(August 11, 2005) and planned to have shoulder surgeries

(August 24, 2005 and September 16, 2005).

47. Plaintiff rejected the proposed route with a P-700

package car, in part, because he preferred to drive a P-320 on

the Magalia Route.

48. On August 12, 2005, Dugan asked Plaintiff to call him

when he recovered from his surgeries so they could resume the

interactive process.

49. Plaintiff never called Dugan to resume the interactive

process after his surgeries.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 10 of 24
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

50. Under the CBA, upon transfer to a union position in a

different facility, employees are placed at the bottom of the

appropriate seniority list.

51. Plaintiff never informed UPS that he was interested in

a transfer, and never submitted a letter for his file stating his

reasons for seeking transfer and his desired facility.

52. Plaintiff had knee surgery on August 11, 2005, and two

shoulder surgeries: the first on August 24, 2005, and the second

on September 16, 2005.

53. On September 8, 2005, Dr. Krone completed an EDD

Physician’s Supplementary Certificate reporting Plaintiff could

not perform his regular occupation until February 8, 2006,

because he could not lift ten pounds above waist level, or work

with his shoulders at chest level or above.

54. On October 3, 2005, Plaintiff submitted a retirement

request form to UPS, requesting to retire in January 2006. 

55. On November 3, 2005, Dr. Krone completed a MetLife

Attending Physician Statement reporting that she advises

Plaintiff to cease his job at UPS as of November 19, 2004 and

specifying that Plaintiff could not lift over twenty pounds,

climb, twist/bend/stoop, reach above shoulder level, and could

not push or pull with either hand. Dr. Krone reported that

Plaintiff’s expected improvement with regard to these

restrictions was uncertain.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 11 of 24
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

56. On December 15, 2005, Dr. Krone completed a Physician’s

Supplemental Disability Statement for Plaintiff’s insurance

company reporting that Plaintiff could not perform his regular

occupation until June 15, 2006, if ever, and Plaintiff could not

lift packages.

57. According to Dr. Krone, Plaintiff’s requested

accommodation for a powering steering, automatic transmission

vehicle would not have helped him perform the lifting, walking,

standing, or climbing functions of his job.

58. Plaintiff remained a UPS employee until he retired on

January 1, 2006.

59. On January 1, 2006, Plaintiff qualified for the

Teamsters Program for Enhanced Early Retirement Benefits (PEER),

which provides unreduced retirement benefits to retirees who meet

specific age and service requirements (combined years of age and

service must equal eighty or more).

60. Plaintiff began receiving his full pension immediately

upon retirement at age 56.

61. UPS reserved Plaintiff’s Magalia route during his leave

and did not allow any package car drivers to bid the Magalia

route until after Plaintiff retired on January 1, 2006.

62. MetLife, UPS’s long term disability (“LTD”) insurance

provider, approved Plaintiff’s claim for LTD benefits through

December 18, 2006-nearly a year after he retired on January 1,

2006.

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 12 of 24
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

63. MetLife approved Plaintiff’s claim for $40,944.51. 

MetLife offset his payments by the amounts he received from STD

and EDD. Had he not retired, Plaintiff would have received

approximately $20,784.00 of this award after January 1, 2006.

64. Since UPS assigned a P-500 package car to the Magalia

route in 2004, through the present, the regular package car on

the Magalia route has always been a P-500. 

65. As part of his pension plan, Plaintiff is eligible to

receive retiree health/dental/vision and prescription drug

benefits at a cost of $75 per month. 

66. In 2006, Plaintiff earned at least $18,761.50 working

for Century 21.

67. In 2007, Plaintiff earned at least $52,978.96 working

for Century 21.

68. In 2008, Plaintiff earned at least $46,679.99 working

for Century 21.

69. Plaintiff sought treatment from a psychologist for

approximately four months (November 2005 through March 2006). 

70. Plaintiff’s psychologist no longer needed to see

Plaintiff after March 2006 because he had recovered from his

depression and anxiety. 

71. Plaintiff’s psychologist testified that there is no way

to confirm whether Timmons’ depression is attributable to UPS, or

some other cause.

72. According to Dr. Krone, in July 2009, Plaintiff

informed her that his shoulder, back and hip pain made it hard

for him to work as a realtor.

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 13 of 24
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

73. Dr. Krone opined in July 2009 that Mr. Timmons would

qualify for state disability.

74. Dr. Krone provided Mr. Timmons with a handicap placard

in July 2009.

75. Whether Plaintiff mitigated his damages adequately.

76. The nature and extent of harm, if any, that Plaintiff

suffered from UPS’s alleged wrongful conduct.

77. Whether reasonably accommodating Timmons would have

created undue hardship for UPS.

78. Whether Rickson and Kuhn had the ability to restructure

routes and create routes at the Chico facility.

79. Whether Rickson assigns the trucks to drivers at the

Chico facility and therefore had the ability, as did the Kuhn, to

reassign the P-320 back to Plaintiff’s route if he wanted. 

80. Whether the only UPS trucks with automatic

transmissions and power steering assigned to the Chico facility

while Plaintiff was employed with UPS were the P-320, P-1000 and

the P-1200.

81. Whether there were P-320, P-1000 and P-1200, or other

trucks available to the Chico facility which would reasonably

accommodate Plaintiff’s disability.

82. Whether the P-320 truck, which had an automatic

transmission, power steering, and a seat with lumbar support,

accommodated Timmons’ disability.

83. Whether Plaintiff was able to perform his job with the

reasonable accommodation of the P-320 truck.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 14 of 24
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

84. Whether any of the trucks available to the Chico

facility could have been modified to reasonably accommodate

Timmons’ disability.

85. Whether assistive equipment such as a Genie Lift could

reasonably accommodate Timmons’ disability.

86. Whether Plaintiff began the interactive process on

October 12, 2004 when requesting a truck with power steering and

automatic transmission.

87. Whether those responsible for enforcing the policy were

aware as of November 16, 2004 that Plaintiff required reasonable

accommodation to be able to continue working.

88. Whether Plaintiff continued trying to have a dialogue

from October 12, 2004 until August 2005, but UPS did not

reciprocate.

89. Whether the UPS company doctor on October 15, 2004 and

Plaintiff’s treating physicians from March 18, 2007 until

Plaintiff was forced into retirement, confirmed Plaintiff’s need

for this accommodation.

90. Whether the Magalia route and the P-320 accommodated

Plaintiff disability for over two years.

91. Whether the proposed P-500 or P-700 would have

accommodated Plaintiff’s disability.

92. Whether Plaintiff proceeded with surgeries and

attempted to learn a new vocation because he felt any additional

requests for a timely good faith interactive process and

reasonable accommodation would be futile.

93. Whether assigning Plaintiff to the P-320 or comparable

package car would have caused UPS undue hardship.

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 15 of 24
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

94. Whether modifying a package car and reasonably

accommodating Timmons’ disability would have caused undue

hardship.

95. Whether restructuring Plaintiff’s route would have

created an undue hardship for UPS.

96. Whether assistive equipment and reasonably

accommodation Timmons’ disability would have caused undue

hardship. 

97. Whether trucks can be assigned from center to center so

that if the Chico facility did not have an available truck with

automatic transmission and power steering, it could get one from

another facility or request one be purchased.

98. Whether UPS had to shuttle packages to Plaintiff on a

consistent basis when he drove the P-320.

99. Workforce Planning Manager Rick Dugan, located in the

Sacramento Valley District office, was responsible for oversight

of the reasonable accommodation policy for the Sacramento Valley

District.

100. Whether UPS’s accommodation policy provides that when

UPS learns an employee with a limitation may need accommodation,

UPS must enter into the interactive process. An employee does not

have to request reasonable accommodation before UPS will be

required to engage in the interactive process. The policy may be

triggered when UPS learns an individual may need some assistance

to do the job because of a physical limitation.

101. Whether there existed vacant positions for which

Timmons was qualified and able to work within California.

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 16 of 24
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

102. Whether or not UPS’ identification of essential job

functions of a position are indeed the essential job functions of

that position.

103. Whether Dugan’s, Beards and/or UPS’s managements

decision not to provide reasonable accommodation as early as

November, 2004 was despicable and done with a willful and knowing

disregard of Timmons’ rights.

All issues of fact remaining in dispute are subject to proof

at the time of trial.

V. WITNESSES

 Plaintiff anticipates calling the witnesses listed on

Attachment “A”.

Defendant anticipates calling the witnesses listed on

Attachment “B”.

Each party may call a witness designated by the other.

A. No other witnesses 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 be reasonably anticipated at the Final Pretrial Conference,

or

(2) The witness was discovered after the Final

Pretrial Conference and the proffering party makes the showing

required in “B” below.

B. Upon the post-pretrial discovery of witnesses, the

attorney shall promptly inform the Court and opposing parties of

the existence of the unlisted witnesses so that the Court may

consider at trial whether the witnesses shall be permitted to

testify. The evidence will not be permitted unless:

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 17 of 24
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

(1) The witnesses could not reasonably have been

discovered prior to pretrial;

(2) The Court and opposing counsel were promptly

notified upon discovery of the witnesses;

(3) If time permitted, counsel proffered the witnesses

for deposition;

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

the witnesses’ testimony was provided by opposing counsel.

VI. EXHIBITS - SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES

At present, Plaintiff contemplates by way of exhibits those

listed on Attachment “C”.

At present, Defendant contemplates by way of exhibits those

listed on Attachment “D”. 

Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be listed numerically. 

Defendant’s exhibits shall be listed alphabetically. The parties

shall use the standard exhibit stickers provided by the Court

Clerk’s Office: pink for Plaintiff and blue for Defendant. 

After three letters, note the number of letters in parenthesis

(i.e., “AAAA(4)” to reduce confusion during the trial. All

multi-page exhibits shall be stapled or otherwise fastened

together and each page within the exhibit shall be numbered. All

photographs shall be marked individually. The list of exhibits

shall not include excerpts of depositions which may be used to

impeach witnesses.

Each party may use an exhibit designated by the other. In

the event that Plaintiff and Defendant offer the same exhibit

during trial, that exhibit shall be referred to by the

designation the exhibit is first identified. 

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 18 of 24
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

The Court cautions the parties to pay attention to this detail so

that all concerned, including the jury, will not be confused by

one exhibit being identified with both a number and a letter.

A. No other exhibits will be permitted to be introduced

unless:

(1) The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that

the exhibit is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could

not be reasonably anticipated at the Pretrial Scheduling

Conference, or

(2) The exhibit was discovered after the Pretrial

Scheduling Conference and the proffering party makes the showing

required in paragraph “B”, below.

B. Upon the post-pretrial discovery of exhibits, the

attorneys shall promptly inform the Court and opposing counsel of

the existence of such exhibits so that the Court may consider at

trial their admissibility. The exhibits will not be received

unless the proffering party demonstrates:

(1) The exhibits could not reasonably have been

discovered prior to pretrial;

(2) The Court and counsel were promptly informed of

their existence;

(3) Counsel forwarded a copy of the exhibit(s) (if

physically possible) to opposing counsel. If the exhibit(s) may

not be copied, the proffering counsel must show that he has made

the exhibit(s) reasonably available for inspection by opposing

counsel.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 19 of 24
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

C. As to each exhibit, each party is ordered to exchange a

copy identical to the Court’s copy, or other reproduction of the

exhibit(s) in a three-ring binder(s) by July 19, 2010. The

attorney or representative for each party is directed to present

the original and two (2) copies of the exhibit(s) and exhibit

list to the Court Clerk’s Office, no later than 3:00 p.m.,

July 12, 2010, or at such earlier time as may be ordered by the

Court. NO EXCEPTIONS.

D. The Court shall be presented with a copy of the

exhibit(s) in a 3-ring binder(s) with a side tab identifying each

exhibit by number or letter. Each binder shall be no larger than

three inches in width and have an identification label on the

front and side panel.

VII. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

A. Filing Depositions. It is the duty of counsel to 

ensure that any deposition which is to be used at trial has been

lodged with the Clerk of the Court. In addition, two unmarked

copies of the transcripts must be delivered to the Court Clerk’s

Office. Counsel are cautioned that a failure to discharge this

duty may result in the Court precluding use of the deposition or

imposition of such other sanctions as the Court deems

appropriate.

B. Use of Depositions. The parties are ordered to file

with the Court and exchange between themselves by July 19, 2010 a

statement designating portions of depositions intended to be

offered or read into evidence (except for portions to be used

only for impeachment or rebuttal).

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 20 of 24
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

21

C. Interrogatories. The parties are ordered to file with

the Court and exchange between themselves by July 19, 2010 the

portions of Answers to Interrogatories which the respective

parties intend to offer or read into evidence at the trial

(except portions to be used only for impeachment or rebuttal).

VIII. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

Pursuant to the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order, all

discovery and law and motion was to have been conducted so as to

be completed as of the date of the Final Pretrial Conference. 

That Order is confirmed. The parties are free to engage in

informal agreements regarding discovery and law and motion

matters. However, any such agreements will not be enforceable in

this Court.

IX. AGREED STATEMENTS - JOINT STATEMENT OF CASE

It is mandatory the parties shall file a short, jointlyprepared statement concerning the nature of this case that will

be read to the jury at the commencement of trial (NO EXCEPTIONS). 

The joint statement of the case shall include in plain concise

language the claims of Plaintiff and claims of other parties, if

any, and the corresponding defense to the claims. The purpose of

the joint statement of the case is to inform the jury at the

outset, what the case is about. The statement must be filed with

the Court by July 19, 2010.

X. PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, VOIR DIRE, VERDICT FORM

A. Jury Instructions

Counsel are directed to meet and confer and to attempt to 

agree upon a joint set of jury instructions. Counsel shall use

the Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions and any revisions. 

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 21 of 24
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

22

Alternate instruction or authority may only be used if a Ninth

Circuit Model Jury Instruction is unavailable. The joint set of

instructions must be filed by July 19, 2010 and shall be

identified as the “Jury Instructions Without Objection.” 

All instructions shall be, to the extent possible, concise,

understandable, and free from argument. See Local Rule 163(c). 

Parties shall also note that any modifications of instructions

from statutory authority, case law or from any form of pattern

instructions must specifically state the modification by

underlining additions and bracketing deletions.

B. Verdict Form

The parties must file a joint verdict form(s) concurrently

with proposed jury instructions by July 19, 2010. If necessary,

a special verdict or interrogatories shall be included for all

factual disputes submitted to the jury that must be resolved

before questions of law can be decided, and for any other issue

on which specific responses are desired. See Local Rule 163(e). 

C. Voir Dire

The parties shall submit proposed voir dire questions to the

Court. The Court reserves the right to conduct all examination

of prospective jurors. Notwithstanding this reservation, the

Court will permit each side up to ten (10) minutes to conduct

voir dire, if desired. The voir dire questions shall be filed

with the Court by July 19, 2010. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 22 of 24
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

23

D. Submission of Documents to the Court

At the time of filing their respective proposed jury

instructions, verdict form(s), and voir dire questions, counsel

shall also electronically mail to the Court in digital format and

compatible with Microsoft Word or WordPerfect, the proposed jury

instructions and verdict form(s). These documents should be sent

to mceorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

XI. AUDIO/VISUAL EQUIPMENT

The parties are required to file electronically a joint

request to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Stephanie Deutsch, by

July 12, 2010 if they wish to reserve and arrange for orientation

with all parties on the Court’s mobile audio/visual equipment for

presentation of evidence. There will be one date and time for

such orientation. 

XII. DATE AND LENGTH OF TRIAL

A trial is scheduled for August 2, 2010. The estimated

length of trial is six (6) days. The trial will consist of eight

(8) jurors. Counsel are to email Stephanie Deutsch, Courtroom

Deputy Clerk, at mceorders@caed.uscourts.gov, or call at (916)

930-4207, by July 19, 2010 to ascertain the status of the trial

date.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 23 of 24
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

24

XIII. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER

Each party is granted five (5) court days from the date of

this Final Pretrial Order to object to any part of the order or

to request augmentation to it. A Final Pretrial Order will be

modified only upon a showing of manifest injustice. If no

objection or modifications are made, this Order will become final

without further order of the Court and shall control the

subsequent course of the action, pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02175-MCE -EFB Document 177 Filed 07/06/10 Page 24 of 24