Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02634/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02634-18/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY MAGARRELL,

Plaintiff, NO. CIV. S-04-2634 LKK/DAD

v.

 ORDER

P. MANGIS, M.D., S.M. ROCHE,

M.D., and RICHARD SANDHAM, M.D., 

Defendants.

 /

On July 2, 2010, this court issued a tentative pretrial order

in the above-captioned matter. (Dkt. No. 121). This order

included, among other things, statements of disputed and undisputed

facts. Defendants now object to many facts included in both

statements. Defendants’ objections are particular to the various

facts, arguing that specific facts are irrelevant, without

evidentiary support, incomplete, or poorly worded.

Plaintiff has filed a response. Plaintiff disputes many of

defendants’ particular arguments. Plaintiff further argues that,

insofar as defendants previously agreed to these facts and the

phrasing thereof, defendants should not now be permitted to object

to these statements. Although there is an element of fairness to

Case 2:04-cv-02634-LKK-DAD Document 132 Filed 07/27/10 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

2

plaintiff’s broader argument, the court invited such objection at

the pretrial conference.

In general, defendants’ objections fall into three categories.

One, defendants argue that various facts are irrelevant. Arguments

concerning relevance may be presented in motions in limine. To the

extent that these objections are overruled, if the underlying fact

is undisputed, it will be presented to the jury as such. 

Two, defendants argue that certain facts are without

evidentiary support. While defendants’ failure to raise this

objection previously is troubling, and the court agrees that

plaintiff has provided some evidence supporting these facts, the

court cannot rule on the sufficiency of this evidence here. To the

extent that defendants demonstrate that these facts are disputed,

the court will treat them as such. Where defendants have simply

tacked the word “disputed” onto a relevance objection, however,

defendants have not demonstrated a dispute. The court further

cautions defendants that, to the extent that defendants have

reversed position and now insist that certain facts are disputed,

if such disputes are proven to be non-existent or frivolous at

trial, the court will impose sanctions.

Three, for some facts, defendants do not dispute the fact

itself, but seek to add additional facts to the statement. Insofar

as plaintiffs dispute this additional information, these requests

are denied.

These three arguments have no application to the statement of

disputed facts. Accordingly, defendants’ objections thereto are

Case 2:04-cv-02634-LKK-DAD Document 132 Filed 07/27/10 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

3

denied, except insofar as plaintiffs agree to defendants’ proposed

modifications.

Guided by these principles, the court turns to the objections

to specific facts:

A. Undisputed Facts:

No. 2: overruled

No. 3: this fact will be moved to the disputed facts section

No. 4: the court substitutes the word “claimed” for “believed”

No. 7: overruled

No. 8: plaintiff agrees to this modification

No. 10: overruled

No. 11: plaintiff agrees

No. 12: overruled

No. 13: overruled

No. 14: overruled

No. 17: overruled

No. 18: overruled

No. 20: the court omits the language which defendants contend

is without evidentiary support. The court otherwise overrules this

objection.

No. 21: Per plaintiffs’ response to defendants’ objection,

this fact is withdrawn.

No. 22: overruled

No. 23: overruled

No. 24: Per plaintiffs’ response, this fact is withdrawn.

////

Case 2:04-cv-02634-LKK-DAD Document 132 Filed 07/27/10 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

4

B. Disputed Facts:

As noted above, the court generally overrules these

objections. Plaintiff has agreed to withdraw number 7, and to

modify facts 8, 9, 10 and 11. 

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ objections are

overruled in part. The court will concurrently file a final

pretrial order reflecting the above modifications.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 27, 2010.

Case 2:04-cv-02634-LKK-DAD Document 132 Filed 07/27/10 Page 4 of 4