Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03734/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03734-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERIE ABEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

OCEANIC ARCATA, LP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03734-SI 

ORDER RE DEFENDANT OCEANIC 

ARCATA MOTION IN LIMINE 

NUMBER 2

Re: Dkt. No. 85

Having fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are 

adequately presented in the briefs and record to decide defendant Oceanic Arcata’s Motion in 

Limine Number 2 without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b). Accordingly, in the interest 

of avoiding delay, with the pre-trial conference mere days away, the Court rules as follows: 

Plaintiff’s witness list includes one retained medical expert, Dr. Clifford Periera, and 23 

treating doctors. See Dkt. No. 88-2. For each medical witness plaintiff states the witness “will 

testify as to Sherie’s injury, the circumstances surrounding the injury and the lasting effects.” Id. 

Defendant argues that most of plaintiff’s medical witnesses cannot provide relevant evidence at trial 

because they did not treat plaintiff immediately following her injury. Dkt. No. 85 at 2. Defendant 

requests plaintiff submit a brief statement for each medical doctor listed as a witness, explaining the

specific medical treatment the witness will testify about. Id.

Case 3:17-cv-03734-SI Document 99 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff argues defendant could have taken the 23 treating doctors’ depositions but chose 

not to.1 Dkt. No. 96 at 2. Further, plaintiff argues plaintiff’s medical records have been produced 

and, from those, defendant should be able to deduce what the witnesses will testify about. Id. The 

Court disagrees. 

Plaintiff offers the treating doctors to testify as to “Sherie’s injury, the circumstances 

surrounding the injury and the lasting effects.” (Dkt. No. 83-1). This generic statement is not enough 

to comport with this Court’s Pre-Trial Instructions requiring the parties to list “all witnesses likely 

to be called at trial, other than solely for impeachment or rebuttal, together with a brief statement 

following each name describing the substance of the testimony to be given.” Under the 

circumstances of this action, where plaintiff had multiple pre-existing medical conditions rendering 

her in need of ADA compliance in the first place, the necessary “substance” of the testimony will 

include at least when the witness treated plaintiff, what treatment the witness provided, and whether 

it was related to the injuries claimed in this action.

As such, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant Oceanic Arcata’s Motion in Limine No. 2. 

On or before Monday January 27, 2020 at 5 p.m., plaintiff shall file an amended witness list, 

which for each doctor listed as a witness, briefly explains what medical treatments/information the 

doctor will testify about, when such treatment occurred and whether it was related to the underlying 

incident.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

1 Plaintiff argues all the physician witnesses were “timely-disclosed” and defendant could 

have deposed them if it so chose. Dkt. No. 96 at 2. However, if the witnesses were properly 

disclosed pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2)(C) plaintiff should have included: “(i) the subject matter on 

which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705; 

and (ii) a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.” Based on 

the record before the Court it is unclear if plaintiff has done so. If plaintiff has already done so, 

complying with this order will hardly be burdensome. If plaintiff has not done so, the witnesses 

were not properly disclosed in the first place. 

Case 3:17-cv-03734-SI Document 99 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 2