Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01184/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01184-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Suzanne M. Jones
Defendant
William L. Magers
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

WILLIAM L. MAGERS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUZANNE M. JONES and 

DOES 1-25, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-01184-GEB-EFB 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO MODIFY FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER 

On September 4, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to 

modify the Final Pretrial Order (FPO) under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure (“Rule”) 16(e). 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

During meet and confer efforts to prepare the Joint 

Pretrial Statement (JPS), counsel for the parties exchanged 

various iterations of the JPS in back-and-forth email 

communications. The parties used red-lined versions of the JPS 

drafts to track changes. During this back-and-forth, a change was 

made to one of the undisputed facts which Defendant failed to 

notice. This change was thus ultimately reflected in the FPO 

filed on August 5, 2015. Defendant now seeks to undo that change 

by modifying the FPO to reclassify the fact as disputed. 

Case 2:14-cv-01184-GEB-EFB Document 32 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 3
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 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Rule 16(e) provides, “[t]he court may modify the [final 

pretrial] order ... only to prevent manifest injustice.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e). The moving party bears the burden of 

demonstrating injustice. Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th 

Cir. 1988), abrogated on a ground unrelated to the issue herein, 

(citing Clark Drilling Contractors, Inc. v. Schramm, Inc., 835 

F.2d 1306, 1308 (10th Cir. 1987)“[t]he burden of establishing 

injustice falls squarely on the moving party.”) 

 District courts consider four factors in evaluating a 

motion to modify a final pretrial order: “(1) the degree of 

prejudice or surprise to the [non-moving party] if the order is 

modified; (2) the ability of the [non-moving party] to cure the 

prejudice; (3) any impact of modification on the orderly and 

efficient conduct of the trial; and (4) any willfulness or bad 

faith by the party seeking modification.” Galdamez v. Potter, 415 

F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 

1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 1998)). 

DISCUSSION 

Defendant has not shown justification under the 

manifest injustice standard for modification of the FPO. 

Defendant contends that “there is no prejudice to Plaintiff” 

which would result from modification of the FPO. (Def. Mot. 4:8, 

ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff counters that modification of the FPO, as 

requested by Defendant, “will result in Plaintiff having to offer 

... evidence at trial regarding a fact that is clearly not 

disputed.” (Pls.’ Opp’n 6:15-16, ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff has 

presented a portion of Defendant’s deposition testimony from 

Case 2:14-cv-01184-GEB-EFB Document 32 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

which the reasonable inference can be drawn that the fact 

Defendant seeks to strike was established in that testimony. 

Further Defendant’s “inexcusable neglect” weighs against a 

finding of manifest injustice. United States v. First Nat’l Bank 

of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendant’s 

counsel admits this requested modification is the direct result 

of an “inadvertent mistake.” (Def. Mot. 1:26, ECF No. 27.) 

Regardless of whether Defendant received an accurate red-lined 

version of the JPS draft, Defendant’s counsel bore the 

responsibility to fully proofread the submitted draft and object 

to any changes made. Nor has Defendant shown she would be 

prejudiced if her motion is denied or that any other manifest 

injustice factor favors granting the motion. Thus this motion is 

denied. 

Dated: September 15, 2015 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01184-GEB-EFB Document 32 Filed 09/16/15 Page 3 of 3