Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00189/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00189-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fresno Famous
Defendant
Fresno Magazine
Defendant
Jennifer L. George
Plaintiff
Scott Gruenwald
Defendant
The Haunted Wolfe Manor Live
Defendant
Todd Wolfe
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER L. GEORGE, an

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

TODD WOLFE, an individual

d.b.a., THE HAUNTED WOLFE MANOR

LIVE, and SCOTT GRUENWALD, an

individual d.b.a. THE HAUNTED

WOLFE MANOR LIVE, 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:09-cv-0189 OWW DLB

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

Motion in Limine Date: None

Trial Date: 3/30/10 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-4 days)

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction over this action is appropriate under 28 

U.S.C. § 1131 and the United States Copyright Act. 

2. Venue in the Eastern District of California is proper

based on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

3. There is no dispute concerning jurisdiction or venue. 

II. JURY/NON-JURY

1. Plaintiffs have not demanded a jury. Defendants,

Gruenwald and Wolfe, have demanded a jury trial on all issues. 

This will be a jury trial. 

1

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 17
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

III. FACTS

A. Undisputed Facts

1. Jennifer L. George is an individual.

2. Sometime in August, 2008 Plaintiff participated in a

tour of a haunted house business operated by Todd Wolfe. 

3. Defendant Todd Wolfe, an individual does business under

the fictitious name and style The Haunted Wolfe Manor Live.

4. Defendant Wolfe conducts tours of the Haunted Wolfe

Manor by appointment for compensation. It is open to the public.

5. The Plaintiff alleges that she sent photos of what

appear to be ghostly human figures (“Photos”) to Wolfe.

6. A dispute has arisen whether Wolfe and/or Gruenwald

posted the Photos on websites for commercial advantage or

otherwise.

7. Defendant Cactus Media Group, Inc., dba Fresno Magazine

is a corporation doing business in California.

8. Plaintiff alleges that the photographs were also sent

to Fresno Magazine by Wolfe and Gruenwald with the intent that

they be published in articles promoting the Fresno Haunted Manor

tour business.

9. Defendant, Fresno Magazine, admits that it published

the Photos provided to them by Wolfe and Gruenwald and

represented that they had the authority to allow republication. 

B. Disputed Facts

1. Defendants maintain Scott Gruenwald is not part of the

Haunted Wolfe Manor business. 

2. Whether Gruenwald’s MySpace page on which the Photos

were posted promotes the Haunted Wolfe Manor Business. 

2

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 17
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. Whether Wolfe and/or Gruenwald continued to disseminate

the Photos after Plaintiff made a written demand on them to cease

using the Photos. 

4. Whether Plaintiff has timely copyrighted the Photos.

5. Whether and to what extent Gruenwald has any

participation in the Wolfe Haunted Manor business.

6. Whether Plaintiff transmitted Photos to Wolfe and/or

Gruenwald with the intent that they be re-published or publicly

disseminated. 

7. Whether Defendants Wolfe and/or Gruenwald provided the

Photos to Brett Rounsaville with the intent that Mr. Rounsaville

publish the Photos on his website to promote the Wolfe Haunted

Manor business. 

8. Whether any violation of Plaintiff’s intellectual

property or other commercially protectable rights in the Photos

have been violated. 

9. The nature and extent of any damages.

10. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of

attorneys’ fees. 

11. Whether, when they disseminated the Photos, Defendants

Gruenwald and Wolfe had no knowledge that Plaintiff claimed

ownership of the Photos or that she had copyrights in the Photos.

12. Whether, when they disseminated the Photos to Fresno

Magazine, Defendant Fresno Magazine had knowledge that Plaintiff

claimed ownership of the Photos or that she had copyrights in the

Photos. 

13. Defendants Gruenwald and Wolfe contend the Photos are

not copyrightable because Plaintiff altered the Photos and the

3

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 3 of 17
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

Photos do not depict ghosts. 

14. Defendants Gruenwald, Wolfe and Fresno Magazine allege

that Plaintiff breached the duty to inform Wolfe and/or Gruenwald

and/or Fresno Magazine of her intent to register her copyright.

15. Defendants Gruenwald, Wolfe and Fresno Magazine contend

Plaintiff failed to timely register her copyright giving rise to

a bar to the recovery of damages. 

16. Whether Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages. 

17. Whether any use of the Photos by Fresno Magazine is

within the Fair Use Doctrine. 

18. Whether any Defendant is entitled to recovery of

attorney’s fees. 

19. Defendant Gruenwald and Wolfe deny they were in

business together; deny any agency, co-conspiracy, employment, or

other relationship that would give rise to the imposition of

vicarious liability. 

20. Defendants Gruenwald and Wolfe assert that Wolfe was a

part owner of the Photos in dispute; Plaintiff does not have an

exclusive claim to the Photos, if any claim at all; and Wolfe had

a right to use the Photos without limitation. 

21. Gruenwald, Wolfe and Fresno Magazine allege the defense

of consent and reasonable expectancy by the Plaintiff that the

Photos would be published and used in the manner that they were. 

22. Gruenwald admits that the Photos appeared on his

MySpace page with the knowledge, consent, assistance, and

expectation of Plaintiff. 

23. Wolfe admits delivering copies of the Photos to Fresno

Famous and Fresno Magazine, but denies giving either their

4

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 4 of 17
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

permission to publish the Photos.

24. Gruenwald and Wolfe further assert that all or one of

the Photos in dispute may be photos of third persons who did not

give Plaintiff permission to make use of their images. 

25. Gruenwald and Wolfe assert that there is no prohibition

relating to an unpublished work prior to the effective date of

any registration claimed by Plaintiff under the Copyright Act. 

IV. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

1. The parties are unaware of any disputed evidentiary

issues. 

V. SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION

1. Not applicable. 

VI. RELIEF SOUGHT

1. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and attorney’s fees. 

Plaintiff also seeks enhanced damages for alleged knowing and

willful copyright infringement. Wolfe and Defendants are seeking

their attorney’s fees. 

VII. DISPUTED ISSUES OF LAW

1. Gruenwald, Wolfe and Fresno Magazine assert that any

use of the photographs constitute a fair use under 17 U.S.C.

§ 107. 

2. Gruenwald, Wolfe and Fresno Magazine assert that any

use that might be alleged against them began relating to an

unpublished work prior to the effective date of registration

claimed by Plaintiff and, consequently, pursuant to 17 U.S.C.

§ 412, statutory damages and attorney fees are not available. 

3. Gruenwald, Wolfe and Fresno Magazine allege that

Plaintiff is liable to them for their fees and costs. 

5

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 5 of 17
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. Plaintiff asserts that pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 204 all

transfers of copyrights are effective only if made in a writing

signed by the copyright owner, that there was no such writing

made by Plaintiff and as such Wolfe is not co-owner of the

copyrights in the photographs as a matter of law. 

5. Plaintiff asserts that the photographs are

copyrightable whether or not Plaintiff altered them in that they

are in any case works of authorship original to Plaintiff. 17

U.S.C.A. § 102. 

VIII. ABANDONED ISSUES

1. The parties are unaware of any other abandoned issues. 

IX. WITNESSES

1. Scott Gruenwald

3874 E. Acacia

Fresno, CA 93762

2. Todd Wolfe

767 W. Polson

Clovis, CA 93612

3. Don Staggs

20961 Calle Cleste

Lake Forest, CA

4. Marsha Miller

5. Jennifer George

91 North Ashwood Ave., #306

Ventura, CA 93003

6. Brett Rounsaville

7. Melanie Warner-Kennedy

Editor, Fresno Magazine

Clovis, CA 93612

Counsel are each ordered to submit a list of witnesses to

the court along with a copy for use by the Courtroom Deputy

Clerk, on the same date and at the same time as the list of

exhibits are to be submitted as ordered below. 

6

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 6 of 17
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

CAUTION

Counsel are cautioned that expert witnesses, including

percipient experts, must be designated as such. No witness, not

identified as a witness in this order, including “rebuttal”

witnesses, will be sworn or permitted to testify at trial.

X. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES

The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that

the parties expect to offer at trial. 

CAUTION

Only exhibits so listed will be permitted to be offered into

evidence at trial, except as may be otherwise provided in this

order. No exhibit not designated in this pretrial order shall be

marked for identification or admitted into evidence at trial. 

A. Defendants

1. Notification posed at various locations on the subject

property by Defendant Wolfe stating “all evidence gathered at

this location are the property of Todd Wolfe and yourself to do

with what you wish.” 

2. E-Mails dated July 29, 2008 through October 22, 2008

from Plaintiff to Defendant Gruenwald. 

3. Photographs received from Plaintiff. 

B. Plaintiffs

1. Four copyright registration certificates.

2. Printout of pages from Fresno Famous website. 

3. Printout of pages of MySpace page maintained by

Gruenwald for Haunted Wolfe Manor live. 

4. Printout of e-mail communication between Plaintiff and

Brent Rounsaville in November, 2008. 

7

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 7 of 17
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. Printout of pages from website amtrekker.com.

6. E-mail correspondence between Wolfe and Plaintiff

between August 19, 2008, and October 24, 2008. 

7. E-mail correspondence between Gruenwald and Marianne

Inman. 

8. Voicemail messages from Gruenwald on October 22, 2008

and November 15, 2008. 

9. October, 2008 issue of Fresno Magazine. 

10. 147 Photographs taken of Wolfe Manor on August 15,

2008. 

11. Certified copies of Photos submitted to U.S. Copyright

Office. 

12. Correspondence between Plaintiff and U.S. Copyright

Office. 

13. Correspondence between Plaintiff and Staff of Fresno

Magazine. 

XI. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

Only specifically designated discovery requests and

responses will be admitted into evidence. Any deposition

testimony shall be designated by page and line and such

designations filed with the Court on or before March 19, 2010. 

The opposing party shall counter-designate by line and page from

the same deposition and shall file written objections to any

question and answer designated by the opposing party and filed

with the court on or before March 26, 2010.

Written discovery shall be identified by number of the

request. The proponent shall lodge the original discovery

request and verified response with the courtroom deputy one day

8

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 8 of 17
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

prior to trial. The discovery request and response may either be

read into evidence, or typed separately, marked as an exhibit, as

part of the exhibit marking process, and offered into evidence.

1. Defendants do not intend to use any discovery responses

by Plaintiff. Other than the evidence provided in the initial

disclosure of Wolfe and Gruenwald, Plaintiff does not intend to

use any discovery responses of Wolfe and Gruenwald. 

XII. STIPULATIONS

1. Defendants have no stipulations to propose at this

time.

XIII. AMENDMENTS - DISMISSALS

1. The Plaintiff agrees to dismiss Fresno Magazine, a

business entity, form unknown; and Fresno Famous, a business

entity, form unknown; and Does 1-10, inclusive. 

XIV. FURTHER TRIAL PREPARATION

A. Trial Briefs.

Counsel are directed to file a trial brief in this matter on

or before March 19, 2010. No extended preliminary statement of

facts is required. The brief should address disputed issues of

substantive law, disputed evidentiary issues of law that will not

be resolved in limine, and any other areas of dispute that will

require resolution by reference to legal authority.

B. Duty of Counsel To Pre-Mark Exhibits.

1. Counsel for the parties are ordered to meet and conduct

a joint exhibit-marking conference on March 9, 2010, via

telephone conference, at 10:00 a.m. for purposes of pre-marking

and examining each other’s exhibits and preparing an exhibit

list. All joint exhibits will be pre-marked JX1-JX50; all of the

9

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 9 of 17
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 exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers 51-100; all

of defendant’s exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers 101-151.

2. Each and every page of each and every exhibit shall be

individually Bates-stamped for identification purposes, and

paginated with decimals and arabic numerals in seriatim; i.e.,

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 . . .. 

3. Following such conference, each counsel shall have

possession of four (4) complete, legible sets of exhibits, for

use as follows:

a. Two (2) sets to be delivered to the Courtroom

Deputy Clerk, Renee Gaumnitz, no later than 4:00 p.m. on March

24, 2010, an original for the court and one for the witness. 

b. One (1) set to be delivered to counsel for the

opposing party and one (1) set to be available for counsel’s own

use.

4. Counsel are to confer to make the following

determination as to each of the exhibits proposed to be

introduced into evidence and prepare separate indexes, one

listing joint exhibits, one listing each party’s exhibits:

a. Joint exhibits, i.e., any document which both

sides desire to introduce into evidence, will be marked as a

joint exhibit (JX), and numbered JX1-___. Joint exhibits shall

be listed as such in the exhibit list in a column that notes they

are admitted into evidence without further foundation;

b. As to any exhibit, not a joint exhibit, to which

there is no objection to its introduction into evidence, the

exhibit will be marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit ___, or Defendant’s

Exhibit ___ in evidence, and will be listed in the exhibit list

10

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 10 of 17
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

as the exhibit of the offering party;

c. The exhibit list shall include columns for noting

objections to exhibits. The first column will list any

objections as to foundation; i.e., Plaintiff’s Foundation 2 -

“not authenticated.”

d. The exhibit list shall include a second column for

noting substantive objections to exhibits based on any other

grounds; i.e., “hearsay, improper opinion, irrelevant.” 

e. The exhibit list shall include a description of

each exhibit on the left-hand side of the page, and the three

columns outlined above (as shown in the example below).

List of Exhibits

 Admitted Objection Other

Exhibit # Description In Evidence To Foundation Objection

f. The completed exhibit list shall be delivered to

Renee Gaumnitz CRD on or before March 24, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. 

g. If originals of exhibits cannot be located, copies

may be used, however, the copies must be legible and accurate. 

If any document is offered into evidence that is partially not

legible, the Court sua sponte will exclude it from evidence.

C. Discovery Documents.

1. Counsel shall file a list of discovery documents with

Renee Gaumnitz CRD at the same time and date as the witness and

exhibit lists are lodged with her, unless the discovery documents

are marked as exhibits, which counsel intend to use at trial by

designating by number, the specific interrogatory, request for

admission, or other discovery document. Counsel shall comply

with the directions of subsection XII (above) for introduction of

11

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 11 of 17
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 discovery document into evidence.

D. Motions In Limine.

1. There will be no hearing on motions in limine in this

case. 

E. Trial Documents.

1. Exhibits To Be Used With Witness. During the trial of 

the case, it will be the obligation of counsel to provide

opposing counsel not less than forty-eight hours before the

witness is called to the witness stand, the name of the witness

who will be called to testify and to identify to the Court and

opposing counsel any exhibit which is to be introduced into

evidence through such witness that has not previously been

admitted by stipulation or court order or otherwise ruled upon,

and to identify all exhibits and other material that will be

referred to in questioning of each witness. If evidentiary

problems are anticipated, the parties must notify the court at

least twenty-four hours before the evidence will be presented. 

F. Counsel’s Duty To Aid Court In Jury Voir Dire.

1. Counsel shall submit proposed voir dire questions, if

any, to Renee Gaumnitz CRD at rgaumnitz@caed.uscourts.gov on or

before March 24, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. Counsel shall also prepare a

joint “statement of the case” which shall be a neutral statement,

describing the claims and defenses for prospective jurors, to be

used in voir dire.

2. In order to aid the court in the proper voir dire

examination of the prospective jurors, counsel are directed to

lodge with the Court the day before trial a list of the

prospective witnesses they expect to call if different from the

12

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 12 of 17
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

list of witnesses contained in the Pre-Trial Order of the Court. 

Such list shall not only contain the names of the witnesses, but

their business or home address to the extent known. This does

not excuse any failure to list all witnesses in the Pre-Trial

Order.

3. Counsel shall jointly submit, to Renee Gaumnitz CRD the

Friday before trial, a neutral statement of the claims and

defenses of the parties for use by the court in voir dire.

G. Counsel’s Duty To Prepare And Submit Jury Instructions.

1. All proposed jury instructions shall be filed and

served on or before March 26, 2010, by 4:00 p.m. Jury

instructions shall be submitted in the following format.

2. Proposed jury instructions, including verdict forms,

shall be submitted via e-mail to dpell@caed.uscourts.gov

formatted in WordPerfect for Windows X3. Counsel shall be

informed on all legal issues involved in the case.

3. The parties are required to jointly submit one set of

agreed upon jury instructions. To accomplish this, the parties

shall serve their proposed instructions upon the other fourteen

days prior to trial. The parties shall then meet, confer, and

submit to the Court the Friday before the trial is to commence,

one complete set of agreed-upon jury instructions.

4. If the parties cannot agree upon any instruction, they 

shall submit a supplemental set of instructions designated as not

agreed upon by March 26, 2010, at 4:00 p.m.

5. Each party shall file with the jury instructions any

objection to non-agreed upon instructions proposed by any other

party. All objections shall be in writing and shall set forth

13

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 13 of 17
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 proposed instruction objected to in its entirety. The

objection should specifically set forth the objectionable matter

in the proposed instruction and shall include a citation to legal

authority explaining the grounds for the objection and why the

instruction is improper. A concise statement of argument

concerning the instruction may be included. Where applicable,

the objecting party shall submit an alternative proposed

instruction covering the subject or issue of law.

6. Format. The parties shall submit one copy of each

instruction. The copy shall indicate the party submitting the

instruction, the number of the proposed instruction in sequence,

a brief title for the instruction describing the subject matter,

the test of the instruction, the legal authority supporting the

instruction, and a legend in the lower lefthand corner of the

instruction: “Given,” “Given As Modified,” “Withdrawn” and

“Refused” showing the Court’s action with regard to each

instruction and an initial line for the judge’s initial in the

lower right-hand corner of the instruction. Ninth Circuit Model

Jury Instructions should be used where the subject of the

instruction is covered by a model instruction.

7. All instruction should be short, concise,

understandable, and neutral statements of the law. Argumentative

or formula instructions will not be given, and should not be

submitted.

8. Parties shall, by italics or underlining, designate any 

modifications of instructions from statutory authority, or any

pattern instruction such as the Model Circuit Jury Instructions

or any other source of pattern instructions, and must

14

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 14 of 17
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

specifically state the modification made to the original form

instruction and the legal authority supporting the modification.

9. Proposed verdict forms shall be jointly submitted or if

the verdict forms are unagreed upon, each party shall submit a

proposed verdict form. Verdict forms shall be submitted to the

Courtroom Deputy Clerk on the first day of the trial. 

10. Failure to comply with these rules concerning the

preparation and submission of instructions and verdict forms may

subject the non-complying party and/or its attorneys to

sanctions.

XV. USE OF LAPTOP COMPUTERS/POWERPOINT FOR

PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

1. If counsel intends to use a laptop computer for

presentation of evidence, they shall contact Renee Gaumnitz CRD

at least one week prior to trial. The Courtroom Deputy Clerk

will arrange a time for any attorney to bring any laptop to be

presented to someone from the Court’s Information Technology

Department, who will provide brief training on how the parties’

electronic equipment interacts with the court’s audio/visual

equipment. If counsel intend to use PowerPoint, the resolution

should be set no higher than 1024 x 768 when preparing the

presentation.

2. ALL ISSUES CONCERNING AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS AND

COMPUTER INTERFACE WITH THE COURT’S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SHALL

BE REFERRED TO THE COURTROOM DEPUTY CLERK. 

XVI. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

1. The parties have no such motions to make. 

///

15

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 15 of 17
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

XVII. SETTLEMENT

1. Settlement efforts have been exhausted. 

XVIII. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES

1. Not applicable. 

XIX. IMPARTIAL EXPERTS, LIMITATIONS OF EXPERTS

1. There is no reason to limit the number of expert

witnesses or for the court to appoint an impartial expert. 

XX. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

1. Both Plaintiff and Defendants Gruenwald, Wolfe and

Defendant Fresno Magazine are seeking their attorney’s fees. The

parties maintain that their request for attorney’s fees should be

determined post-verdict. 

XXI. ESTIMATE OF TRIAL TIME

1. Four days.

XXII. TRIAL DATE

1. March 30, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, on the

Seventh Floor.

XXIII. NUMBER OF JURORS AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES

1. There will be an eight person jury, each side shall

have four peremptory challenges. 

XXIV. AMENDMENT OF FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

1. The Final Pretrial Order shall be reviewed by the

parties and any corrections, additions, and deletions shall be

drawn to the attention of the Court immediately. Otherwise, the

Final Pretrial Order may only be amended or modified to prevent

manifest injustice pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(e). 

///

16

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 16 of 17
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

XXV. MISCELLANEOUS

1. The audio recording of Gruenwald’s voicemail messages

left for Plaintiff will be offered on a CD format. Other than

that CD, there are no other issues regarding special handling of

trial exhibits.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17

Case 1:09-cv-00189-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 02/17/10 Page 17 of 17