Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00723/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00723-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Bakersfield
Defendant
Jeffrey Dibbern
Plaintiff
Nghia Duong
Defendant
Anthony Kidwell
Defendant
Jeffrey King
Defendant
Fabian Salazar
Defendant
Garett Sanford
Defendant
Jaime Velazquez
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY DIBBERN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00723-CDB

PRETRIAL ORDER

Motions in limine:

 File – August 12, 2024

 Respond – August 22, 2024

 Hearing – September 12, 2024

 

Jury instructions, proposed verdict form:

 Party-submitted – August 22, 2024

 Conference – August 28, 2024

 Joint & Disputed – September 3, 2024

 Hearing – September 12, 2024

Exhibits:

 Exchange exhibit lists – August 19, 2024

 Exhibit conference – August 26, 2024

 Exhibits lodged – September 9, 2024

Deposition designations: August 28, 2024

Counter designations: September 3, 2024

Pretrial Conference: July 16, 2024, 10:00AM

Jury Trial: September 16, 2024, at 8:30AM in the 

Bakersfield Courthouse, 510 19th Street (CDB)

On July 16, 2024, the Court conducted a final pretrial conference. (Doc. 63). DeWitt Lacy, 

Julia Quesada and Lena Andrews appeared in-person as counsel for Plaintiff; Michael Marderosian 

and Heather Cohen appeared via Zoom videoconference as counsel for Defendants. Having considered 

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 1 of 16
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

the parties’ joint pretrial statement (Doc. 62) and discussion held during the pretrial conference, the 

Court issues this tentative pretrial order.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern asserts claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against 

Defendants City of Bakersfield, Anthony Kidwell, Nghia Duong, and Fabian Salazar, based on 

Defendants’ alleged actions in connection with a law enforcement encounter between Plaintiff and 

Defendants and others on December 30, 2021, as alleged in the operative First Amended Complaint. 

(Doc. 50).

A. Jurisdiction/Venue

This action includes causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is based upon 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law 

causes of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

B. Jury Trial

The parties demanded a jury trial in this matter. The jury trial will consist of eight jurors.

C. Undisputed Facts

1. Defendant Officers Anthony Kidwell, Fabian Salazar, and Nghia Duong were 

employees of Defendant City of Bakersfield on December 30, 2021.

2. During the encounter with Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern, Defendant Officers Anthony 

Kidwell, Fabian Salazar, and Nghia Duong were acting within the course and scope of 

their employment as police officers for Defendant City of Bakersfield.

3. Defendant Anthony Kidwell’s patrol car airbag deployed during the incident.

4. Defendant Anthony Kidwell used his patrol car as a control weapon during the incident.

5. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern was on foot at the time Defendant Anthony Kidwell used his 

patrol car as a control weapon.

6. The events giving rise to this action occurred on December 30, 2021 in the City of 

Bakersfield, County of Kern.

D. Disputed Facts

Local Rule 281(b)(4) requires the parties to include in their joint pretrial statement a “plain, 

concise statement of each fact (and any related essential facts) that the party claims or concedes to be 

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 2 of 16
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

in dispute.” Here, the parties largely present as “disputed facts” their conflicting positions as to 

whether the elements of the claims asserted are met or whether the factfinder should make certain 

conclusions concerning the evidence. Thus, for instance, the parties identify disputes as to whether 

any Defendant engaged in “objectively unreasonable” force (Doc. 62 at 3, Plaintiff’s #1) or failed to 

“promptly summon/provide medical care” (id., Plaintiff’s #3), or whether any of the Defendants 

violated the statutory or common law bases for the claims asserted (id. at 4, Defendants’ ## 1-7). As 

such, the Court is unable to ascertain from the parties’ joint pretrial statement what, if any, material 

facts are disputed.

E. Disputed Legal Issues

The parties agree Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) 42 

U.S.C § 1983 - Violation of the Fourth Amendment - Excessive Force; (2) 42 U.S.C § 1983 -

Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment - Denial of Medical Care; (3) 42 U.S.C § 1983 - Conspiracy 

to Violate Civil Rights; (4) Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1; (5) Battery/Assault; (6) 

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) Negligence.

Defendants assert five affirmative defenses: (1) Qualified Immunity; (2) Self Defense/Defense 

of Others; (3) Justified/Reasonable Use of Force; (4) Comparative Fault; (5) Mitigation of Damages.

Although the parties present in their joint pretrial statement alternative statements of law 

pertaining to the legal standards applicable to Plaintiff’s claims, the Court cannot discern any material 

disputes except as to whether the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment applies to Plaintiff’s denial of 

medical care claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See (Doc. 62 at 15, 19). Cf. Fonseca v. City of Fresno, 

No. 1:10–cv–00147 LJO DLB, 2012 WL 44041, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012) (“The Ninth Circuit 

analyzes claims regarding deficient medical care during and immediately following an arrest under the 

Fourth Amendment.”).

F. Motions In Limine Hearing and Briefing Schedule

Plaintiff raises evidentiary objections relating to: a firearm recovered from Plaintiff or his 

vehicle at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest; the stolen status of the vehicle Plaintiff was driving; Plaintiff’s 

use of methamphetamine; an apology note at issue during Plaintiff’s stay in a hospital; Plaintiff’s and 

Jennifer Marchant’s social media posts; dismissal of claims as to other Defendants; Plaintiff’s drug use 

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 3 of 16
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

27

28

and criminal history, if any; and expert testimony by Dr. Richard Clark, Curtis Cope, and Zachary 

Burdick.

Defendant raises evidentiary objections relating to: expert testimony regarding damages and 

liability; testimony of John Opjordan; agency discipline of Defendants, if any; testimony by lay 

witnesses on ultimate issues; referral of Defendants for criminal prosecution; photographs of 

Velasquez vehicle; Bakersfield Police Department Policies and Learning Domains; and undisclosed 

damages.

Both parties intend to file motions in limine regarding the evidence to be used at trial. The 

purpose of a motion in limine is to establish in advance of the trial that certain evidence should not be 

offered at trial. “Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, 

the practice has developed pursuant to the district court’s inherent authority to manage the course of 

trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984); Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family 

Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). The Court will grant a motion in limine, and thereby bar 

use of the evidence in question, only if the moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is not 

admissible for any valid purpose. Id. The Court does not encourage the filing of motions in limine

unless they are addressed to issues that can realistically be resolved by the court prior to trial and 

without reference to the other evidence which will be introduced by the parties at trial. 

In advance of filing any motion in limine, the parties SHALL meet and confer to 

determine whether they can resolve any disputes and avoid filing motions in limine. Along with 

their motions in limine, the parties SHALL file a certification demonstrating the parties have in 

good faith met and conferred and attempted to resolve the dispute. Failure to provide the 

certification may result in the Court refusing to entertain the motion.

The parties, after meaningful and genuine meet and confer efforts, shall file and serve their

actually disputed motions in limine no later than August 12, 2024. Any response to motions in limine

shall be filed no later than August 22, 2024. The Court will conduct a hearing on the motions in 

limine on September 12, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. in the Bakersfield Courthouse, 510 19th Street (CDB), 

unless this Court decides to rule on the motions in limine on the briefs.

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 4 of 16
5

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

Moving and opposition papers must be brief, succinct, and well-organized. The parties shall

consolidate their respective motions in limine in a single document, organized by number, and file 

oppositions in a single document responding to the numbered issues under the same corresponding 

headers. For example, if Plaintiff has five evidentiary issues, he would file one motion that has five 

headers: Motion in limine No. 1; Motion in limine No. 2, and so on; and, in response, Defendants

would file one opposition document organized in the same way.

G. Special Factual Information

1. General Nature of Incident (Local Rule 281(b)(6)(iv)(A))

This case arises from an encounter between Plaintiff and law enforcement officers, including 

Defendants, on December 30, 2021, in the vicinity of the intersection of Wible Road and White Lane 

in Bakersfield and a nearby gas station. Plaintiff asserts Defendants engaged in excessive use of force 

in their efforts to bring Plaintiff into custody, including through Defendants’ use of a patrol vehicle to 

strike Plaintiff, and failed to adequately provide for his medical care. Defendants assert Plaintiff 

evaded officers’ attempts to capture him and failed to heed their directions and assert various 

affirmative defenses, including qualified immunity. The causes of action and statutory and common 

law predicates at issue are referred to above.

2. Plaintiff’s Information (Local Rule 281(b)(6)(iv)(B))

At the time of this incident, Plaintiff was 36 years old and currently is 38. Plaintiff asserts he 

suffered broken lumbar bones numbers 1-3, four pelvic breaks, a broken right hip, broken femur, five 

torn ligaments in the right knee, broken right fibula, broken right tibia, internal/external degloving, 

thirteen breaks in the right foot, eleven surgeries on the right foot, extension flexion band on right 

ankle, penal muscle tear in pelvis, four broken metacarpals in left foot, numerous facial lacerations, 

three debridement surgeries on right foot, two plastic surgeries on right foot, full orthoscopic rebuild 

on right knee, partial soft tissue amputation on right foot, and right hand nerve damage. Defendants 

assert Plaintiff’s documented injuries include only: (1) Right open displaced trimalleolar fracture; (2) 

Nondisplaced fractures of the right pubic bone and ischium; (3) Open fracture of right ankle; and (4) 

Right tibial plateau fracture.

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 5 of 16
6

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

Plaintiff’s prior injuries include: head injury in 1997; right elbow reconstructive surgery in 

2001; broken right and left ankles between three and four times between 2000-2010; and knee 

reconstruction surgery in 2009.

In connection with the December 2021 incident, Plaintiff has received care from numerous 

medical providers and has or continues to experience effects including right ankle pain for which he is 

prescribed Lortab. Plaintiff can ambulate fairly comfortably for 30 to 45 minutes and then has to sit 

down and rest for approximately 30 minutes. Plaintiff had two falls and required approximately four 

emergency room visits between 2022 and 2024.

Sometime after September 2022, Plaintiff got a job as a truck mechanic. He worked at that job 

on a full-time basis for approximately six months but had to stop due to its physical demands. 

Plaintiff requires frequent breaks every two hours for approximately 30 minutes secondary to ankle 

discomfort. Plaintiff’s hours were ultimately cut back by the company.

Plaintiff estimates his Life Care Plan Expenses based on changes in the Consumer Price Index 

(“CPI”) in the years 2023 to 2063 will range from $13,914 (first year) to $932 (last year) per annum. 

Plaintiff’s Life Care Plan Expenses are increased by an average growth rate of 3.53% and are 

calculated until the end of his life expectancy in the year 2063. Based on changes in the Medical 

Consumer Price Index (“MCPI”) in the years 2023 to 2063, Plaintiff estimates his Life Care Plan 

Expenses will range from $51,831 (first year) to $336 (last year). Plaintiff estimates the total present 

value of his Life Care Plan Expenses based on CPI is $2,021,284 and based on MCPI is calculated at 

$1,259,818. In the aggregate, Plaintiff’s Life Care Plan Expenses are calculated at $3,281,102.

H. Relief Sought

Plaintiff seeks unquantified damages for: past and future medical care and treatment; future 

disability, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional pain and suffering; past and future loss of wages, 

earning capacity and employment; past and future household expenses; general, special and punitives; 

attorney’s fees and costs.

Defendants seek costs and attorney’s fees.

///

///

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 6 of 16
7

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

I. Abandoned Issues

Plaintiff stipulated to dismissal of the Monell claim, as well as claims against Jeffrey King, 

Jaime Velazquez, and Garett Sanford. Without objection from Plaintiff, the Court dismissed the Doe 

Defendants at the pretrial conference on July 16, 2024.

J. Witnesses

The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including rebuttal and 

impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY 

BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT 

THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(10).

a. Plaintiff

• Plaintiff, Jeffrey Dibbern 

• Defendant Officer, Anthony Kidwell

• Defendant Officer, Nghia Duong

• Defendant Officer, Fabian Salazar

• Officer, Jaime Velazquez

• Officer, Garett Sanford

• Officer, Jeffrey King

• Officer, Zachary Burdick 

• John Opjorden

• Georgia Mattern

• Jennifer Marchant

• Diana Bubanja MD, CLCP, CFCE

• Kelly Couch

• Basem Attum MD

• Robert W. Johnson

• Gloria Perry PA

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 7 of 16
8

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

• Jeff Markham MD, Expert MRI

• Mikhail Bekarev MD

• Scott R. Davis MD

Defendant

• Defendant Anthony Kidwell

• Defendant Nghia Duong

• Defendant Fabian Salazar

• Jeffrey King

• Jaime Velazquez

• Garett Sanford

• Lance O’Nesky

• Michael Broida

• Paramedic Matthew Braman

• EMT Mark Gildez

• Hall Ambulance Custodian of Records

• Christopher Hernandez

• Matthew Kroeker

• Brandon Crosson

• Trevor Silva

• Kevin Elliott

• Carina Arteaga

• Katelyn Codner

• Dr. Mikhail Bekarev

• Monica (Dr. Bekarev Physician’s assistant)

• Kern Medical Center Custodian of Records

• Eric Celedon

• Gloria Perry, PA 

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 8 of 16
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

• Curtis J. Cope (expert)

• Ardalan Nourian, M.D (expert)

• Richard Clark M.D (expert)

• Maria Sanchez 

• David Zimmerman

• Tami L. Noe

• Kern County Crime Laboratory Custodian of Records

• Kristi Harrer

• Saleem A. Choudry

• Bombdad Pour-Abdollah

• Braulio Martinez-Barrera

• Nabeel Khalid Chaudhry

• Bakersfield Police Department Custodian of Records

K. Trial Exhibits

Plaintiff’s Exhibits and Defendants’ Exhibits are those listed in the parties’ respective exhibit

lists, as set forth in the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement. (Doc. 62 at Sec. 11(a) & 11(b)). The Court 

incorporates the parties’ exhibit lists by reference.

NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THE JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT 

AND INCORPORATED HEREIN, MAY BE ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE 

OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT 

“MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(11).

1. Duty to Pre-Mark Exhibits

No later than August 19, 2024, the parties shall exchange their proposed exhibits, including 

demonstrative exhibits. The parties’ counsel shall meet and conduct an exhibit conference no later 

than August 26, 2024, to pre-mark and examine trial exhibits and to prepare exhibit lists. All joint 

exhibits (i.e., any documents which the parties agree should be introduced into evidence) shall be premarked with the prefix “JX” and numbered sequentially starting with JX1. Exhibits marked with 

prefix “JX” will be automatically admitted into evidence without further evidentiary foundation. All 

of Plaintiff’s exhibits (not jointly agreed upon) shall be pre-marked with the prefix “PX” and 

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 9 of 16
10

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

numbered sequentially starting with PX100. Defendants’ exhibits (not jointly agreed upon) shall be 

pre-marked with the prefix “DX” and numbered sequentially starting with DX800 and proceeding, as 

needed, through DX999. This requirement that exhibits be pre-marked includes any exhibits that will 

be presented in any manner during trial, such as “demonstrative” evidence.

The parties shall separately number each page of any exhibit exceeding one page in length (i.e., 

JX1-2, PX100-2, DX800-2, etc.).

Each exhibit binder (Joint, Plaintiff, and Defendant) shall contain an index which is placed in 

the binder before the exhibits. The index shall consist of a column for the exhibit number, one for a 

description of the exhibit and one column entitled “Admitted in Evidence” (as shown in the example 

below).

INDEX OF [JOINT] EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT # DESCRIPTION ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE

2. Exhibits

No later than September 9, 2024, the parties shall file and serve their lists of respective premarked exhibits. Further, no later than September 9, 2024, Plaintiff shall deliver three sets of the 

joint exhibits and the parties each shall deliver three sets of their separate exhibit binders to the 

Courtroom Deputy Clerk and provide one set to their opponent.

3. Discovery Documents

The following is a list of discovery documents – portions of depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and responses to requests for admissions – that the parties expect to offer at trial. If a 

discovery document intended to be used at trial has not been previously lodged, the parties shall also 

submit the original of such document along with a copy for the Court’s use no later than September 9, 

2024. Discovery documents (or relevant portions thereof) may be either separately marked and 

indexed as a trial exhibit (as part of the exhibit marking process described above) or, if admissible, 

read directly into evidence.

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 10 of 16
11

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

NO DISCOVERY DOCUMENT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, 

MAY BE ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT 

THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(12).

Plaintiff’s Documents

1. City’s responses to Request for Production of Documents to City, Set One

2. City’s responses to Request for Production of Documents to City, Set Two

3. Nghia Duong Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

4. Nghia Duong Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One

5. Anthony Kidwell Responses to Request for Production of Documents to City, Set One

6. Anthony Kidwell Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

7. Garett Sanford Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

8. Garett Sanford Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One

9. Jaime Velasquez Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

10. Jaime Velasquez Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One

11. Fabian Salazar Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

12. Fabian Salazar Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One

13. Jeffrey King Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

14. Jeffrey King Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One

15. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern’s Responses to City Defendant’s Requests for Production of 

Documents, Set One

16. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern’s Responses to City’s Requests for Production of Documents, 

Set Two

17. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern’s Responses to City Special Interrogatories, Set One

18. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern’s Responses to Kidwell’s Special Interrogatories, Set One

19. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern’s Responses to King’s Special Interrogatories, Set One

20. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern’s Responses to Duong’s Special Interrogatories, Set One

21. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern’s Responses to Velazquez’s Special Interrogatories, Set One

22. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern’s Responses to Salazar’s Special Interrogatories, Set One

23. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern’s Responses to Sanford’s Special Interrogatories, Set One

24. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern’s Amended Responses to City Special Interrogatories, Set One

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 11 of 16
12

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

25. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern’s Amended Responses to City’s Requests for Production of 

Documents, Set Two

26. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern’s Responses to City’s Requests for Admissions, Set One

27. Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern’s Amended Responses to City’s Requests for Admissions, Set 

One

28. Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure Statement 

29. Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Disclosure Statement 

30. Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement

31. Plaintiff’s Initial Expert Disclosures 

32. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Expert Disclosures

33. Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Expert Disclosures

Defendant’s Documents

1. Plaintiff’s Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Propounded by Defendant City 

of Bakersfield

2. Plaintiff’s Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Propounded by Defendant 

Duong

3. Plaintiff’s Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Propounded by Defendant 

Kidwell

4. Plaintiff’s Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Propounded by Defendant 

King

5. Plaintiff’s Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Propounded by Defendant 

Salazar

6. Plaintiff’s Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Propounded by Defendant 

Sanford

7. Plaintiff’s Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Propounded by Defendant 

Velasquez

8. Plaintiff’s Response to Request for Admissions, Set One, Propounded by Defendant 

City of Bakersfield

9. Plaintiff’s Amended Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Propounded by 

Defendant City of Bakersfield

10. Plaintiff’s Response to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Propounded by Defendant 

Salazar

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 12 of 16
13

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. Deposition Testimony

Deposition testimony shall be designated by page and line number, with such designation to be 

filed and served no later than August 28, 2024. Any counter-designation as to the same deposition 

(also set out by page and line number) shall be filed and served no later than September 3, 2024. The 

original certified transcript of any deposition identified in a designation or counter-designation, along 

with any videorecording of deposition excerpts either party intends to use at trial, shall be lodged with 

the Courtroom Deputy Clerk no later than September 9, 2024.

L. Proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms

The parties shall serve their proposed jury instructions and verdict forms on one another no 

later than August 22, 2024. The parties shall conduct a conference to address their proposed jury 

instructions and verdict forms no later than August 28, 2024. At the conference, the parties shall reach 

agreement on jury instructions and a verdict form for use at trial. The parties, no later than September 

3, 2024, shall jointly file and serve all agreed-on jury instructions and an agreed-on verdict form and 

identify such as the agreed-on jury instructions and verdict form. The parties also shall file and serve

by September 3, 2024, any proposed but disputed jury instructions and/or partial verdict form, and

identify those as disputed. 

All jury instructions SHALL indicate the party submitting the instruction (i.e., joint/agreed-on, 

Plaintiff’s, or Defendants’), the number of the proposed instruction in sequence, a brief title for the 

instruction describing the subject matter, the text of the instruction, and the legal authority supporting 

the instruction.

All jury instructions and verdict forms SHALL be e-mailed as a Microsoft Word attachment to 

cdborders@caed.uscourts.gov. The Court will not accept a mere list of numbers of form instructions 

from the Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions, CACI, BAJI, or other instruction forms. The proposed 

jury instructions must be in the form and sequence that the parties desire to be given to the jury. All 

blanks to form instructions must be completed. Irrelevant or unnecessary portions of form instructions 

must be omitted.

Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions shall be used where the subject of the instruction is 

covered by a model instruction. Otherwise CACI or BAJI instructions shall be used where the subject 

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 13 of 16
14

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

of the instruction is covered by CACI or BAJI. All instructions shall be short, concise, understandable, 

neutral and accurate statements of the law. Argumentative or formula instructions will not be given 

and must not be submitted. Quotations from legal authorities without reference to the issues at hand 

are unacceptable. 

The parties shall, by italics or underlining, designate any modification of instructions from 

statutory or case authority, or any pattern instruction, such as the Ninth Circuit Model Jury 

Instructions, CACI, BAJI, or any other source of pattern instructions, and must specifically state the 

modification made to the original form instruction and the legal authority supporting the modification.

The Court will address arguments concerning jury instructions, verdict form, and any other 

outstanding pretrial issues at the motion in limine hearing on September 12, 2024, at 10:30 a.m.

M. Further Discovery/Motions

No further discovery is sought by either party.

N. Stipulations

The parties have not agreed upon any stipulations.

O. Amendments/Dismissals

Neither party seeks amendments to the pleadings. The Doe Defendants were dismissed at the 

pretrial conference.

P. Settlement Negotiations

The parties previously participated in a Court-convened settlement conference but did not 

settle the case. Defendants do not believe further settlement discussions would be fruitful.

Q. Agreed Statements

The parties did not include in their joint pretrial statement a neutral statement to use during 

jury selection. At the pretrial conference, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and provide 

a neutral statement. The parties shall provide to the Court an agreed-upon neutral statement no later 

than September 12, 2024.

R. Separate Trial of Issues

At the pretrial conference, the parties expressed agreement to bifurcate trial of punitive 

damages. The parties disagree whether the issue of damages should be bifurcated from the trial of 

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 14 of 16
15

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

liability. Any motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages shall be filed on or before the 

deadline to file motions in limine.

S. Impartial Experts – Limitation of Experts

None requested.

T. Attorney’s Fees

The parties will seek an award of attorneys’ fees as appropriate as a post-trial motion.

U. Trial Date/Estimate of Length

Jury trial is set for September 16, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Christopher D. 

Baker at the United States Courthouse, 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. Trial is expected to last 

7 – 10 days.

V. Trial Briefs

The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file trial briefs. If any party 

wishes to file a trial brief, they must do so in accordance with Local Rule 285 and be filed on or before 

September 3, 2024.

W. Objections to Pretrial Order

Within 14 days after the date of service of this order, the parties may file written objections to 

any of the provisions set forth in this order. The parties may file any replies to the objections within 

seven days. The objections shall clearly specify the requested modifications, corrections, additions or 

deletions. If no objections are filed, the order will become final without further order of the 

Court. 

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and Local Rule 283, this order shall control the subsequent course of this action and shall be modified 

only to prevent manifest injustice.

X. Miscellaneous Matters

The Court anticipates convening trial Monday – Friday at 8:30 a.m., with the exception of 

Friday, September 20, 2024, on which date the Court will not convene for trial proceedings. The 

Court anticipates one morning break for 15 minutes and adjourning for lunch at 12:00 for one hour, 

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 15 of 16
16

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

and one afternoon break for 15 minutes and adjourning each day by 4:00 p.m. Once the jury begins 

deliberating, the jury will set their own schedule.

The Court will enter separately an order addressing courtroom and trial decorum.

Strict compliance with this order and its requirements is mandatory. All parties and their 

counsel are subject to sanctions, including dismissal or entry of default, for failure to fully comply 

with this order and its requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 64 Filed 07/17/24 Page 16 of 16