Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00181/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00181-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brason Lee
Plaintiff
Natomas Unified School District
Defendant

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

BRASON LEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-00181 MCE-EFB

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

TRIAL DATE: April 25, 2016

TIME: 9:00 a.m.

Pursuant to Court Order, a Final Pretrial Conference was held on December 4, 

2016. Jay Jambeck appeared as counsel for Plaintiff. Keith Chidlaw 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 1331. Jurisdiction and venue 

are not contested. 

II. JURY

Both parties timely demanded a jury trial pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure.

///

///

///

Case 2:13-cv-00181-MCE-EFB Document 54 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 9
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. Plaintiff is the father of a former student ("Student") who attended Two 

Rivers Elementary School ("Two Rivers") in the Natomas Unified School District 

(hereinafter "Natomas").

2. Student was eligible for Special Education under the category of Speech or 

Language Impairment.

3. Student first began receiving Speech and Language services from 

Natomas in April, 2007.

4. In March 2009, Natomas performed a Multidisciplinary Evaluation 

("Assessment") to assess what programs and services Student would need, if any. The 

Assessment was performed by a school psychologist, a speech and language 

pathologist, and a severe disorder of language teacher. Based on the results of the 

Assessment, it was determined Student should continue to receive Speech and 

Language services from Natomas.

5. Plaintiff disagreed with the conclusions stated in the Assessment.

6. Student's March 22, 2010, Individualized Education Program ("IEP") called 

for sixty (60) sessions per school year at twenty-five (25) minutes each. 

7. Student attended kindergarten at Two Rivers during the 2009-2010 school 

year. Student’s teacher was Barbara Nickless.

8. Student attended 1st grade at Two Rivers during the 2010-2011 school 

year. Student’s teacher was Shirley Finster.

9. Student attended 2nd grade at Two Rivers during the 2011-2012 school 

year.

10. Suzanne Johnstone was employed by Natomas as the Director of Special 

Education during the relevant times.

11. Sean Green worked on a contract basis with Natomas as a Speech and 

Language Pathologist during the relevant times.

///

Case 2:13-cv-00181-MCE-EFB Document 54 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 9
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

12. Leslie Sargent was employed by Natomas and served as the Principal at 

Two Rivers beginning October 18, 2010.

13. Bobbie Plough was the Superintendent of Natomas from July 2010 until 

June 2011.

14. On February 1, 2011, Superintendent Bobbie Plough, Director of Special 

Education Suzanne Johnstone, and Speech and Language Pathologist Sean Green, and 

individuals petitioned the Sacramento County Superior Court for Injunctions Prohibiting 

Harassment. The Petitions were denied on February 17, 2011.

15. Plaintiff withdrew his daughter from Natomas to attend a private school 

following the completion of 2nd grade in 2012.

16. Plaintiff’s daughter is disabled under the definition utilized by the 

Rehabilitation Act.

IV. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES

The remaining claims for trial are:

1. Natomas personnel provided Plaintiff with documentation indicating 

Student had been receiving speech therapy as delineated by her IEP. Natomas, through 

its attorney, scheduled a meeting between Plaintiff, his attorney, the Superintendent, and 

the Director of Special Education to discuss Plaintiff’s personal conduct and to address 

Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the provision of services. Plaintiff cancelled the meeting.

2. Whether or not Student was receiving therapy sessions through Natomas 

in compliance with her March 2010 IEP.

3. Whether or not Natomas retaliated against Plaintiff when three individuals 

attempted to obtain Injunctions Prohibiting Harassment against Plaintiff.

4. The reasons Suzanne Johnstone, Sean Green and Bobbie Plough filed 

Petitions for Injunction Prohibiting Harassment against Plaintiff.

5. The factual bases for the Petitions for Injunction Prohibiting Harassment.

6. Whether or not Plaintiff advocated on behalf of his daughter.

7. Whether or not Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the retaliation.

Case 2:13-cv-00181-MCE-EFB Document 54 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 9
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

8. Whether or not Natomas falsified records to show Student had received 

services when she had not. Plaintiff disagrees that this is a relevant issue.

9. Student’s Speech and Language Pathologist scheduled speech sessions 

at a rate of approximately 2 times a week.

All issues of fact remaining in dispute are subject to proof at the time of trial.

V. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (ECF No. 43) is denied.

VI. 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:

(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.

Case 2:13-cv-00181-MCE-EFB Document 54 Filed 01/13/16 Page 4 of 9
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

VII. 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. 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:

Case 2:13-cv-00181-MCE-EFB Document 54 Filed 01/13/16 Page 5 of 9
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

(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.

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 

April 11, 2016. 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., April 11, 2016, 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.

VIII. 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 April 11, 2016 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 2:13-cv-00181-MCE-EFB Document 54 Filed 01/13/16 Page 6 of 9
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

C. Interrogatories. The parties are ordered to file with the Court and 

exchange between themselves by April 11, 2016 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).

XI. 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.

X. AGREED STATEMENTS - JOINT STATEMENT OF CASE

It is mandatory the parties shall file a short, jointly-prepared 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 

Defendant 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 

April 11, 2016.

XI. 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. Alternate instruction or authority may only be used if a Ninth Circuit 

Model Jury Instruction is unavailable. Attached for counsel's review are the opening and 

closing instructions for your use. The joint set of instructions must be filed by April 11, 

2016 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 

Case 2:13-cv-00181-MCE-EFB Document 54 Filed 01/13/16 Page 7 of 9
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

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 April 11, 2016. 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 April 11, 2016.

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, the proposed jury instructions and verdict form(s). 

These documents should be sent to mceorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

XII. AUDIO/VISUAL EQUIPMENT

The parties are required to file electronically a joint request to the Courtroom 

Deputy Clerk, Stephanie Deutsch, by April 4, 2016 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.

XIII. DATE AND LENGTH OF TRIAL

A trial is scheduled for April 25, 2016 . The estimated length of trial is seven (7) 

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 April 11, 2016 to ascertain the status of the trial date.

Case 2:13-cv-00181-MCE-EFB Document 54 Filed 01/13/16 Page 8 of 9
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

The Court will permit each side up to one (1) hour for closing arguments. Plaintiff 

will be permitted to reserve time for rebuttal purposes but will be required to monitor any 

time so reserved.

XIV. 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: January 11, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-00181-MCE-EFB Document 54 Filed 01/13/16 Page 9 of 9