McLeod v. City of Redding

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 3, 2024·No. 2:22-cv-00585·Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11

12 VERONICA MCLEOD, individually No. 2:22-cv-00585 WBS JDP and as successor in interest 13 to decedent, DOLORES HERNANDEZ; AMADO HERNANADEZ; 14 individually and as successor in interest to decedent, 15 DOLORES HERNANDEZ; and YSIDRA REGALDO, individually, 16 FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 CITY OF REDDING; GARRETT 19 MAXWELL, an individual; MATTHEW BRUCE, an individual; 20 and DOES 2-10, inclusive,

21 Defendants. 22 23 ----oo0oo---- 24 A Final Pretrial Conference was held in this matter, 25 pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16(d) of the Federal Rules of 26 Civil Procedure and Local Rule 282, on July 1, 2024. Stewart 27 Katz appeared as counsel for plaintiffs and Dale L. Allen, Jr., 28 1 appeared as counsel for defendants.1 Following the conference, 2 the court enters this Final Pretrial Order: 3 I. Jurisdiction – Venue 4 Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 5 1343(a), because plaintiffs assert a claim for violation of 6 constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 7 U.S.C. § 1367, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over 8 plaintiffs’ state law claims, which arise from the same course of 9 conduct as plaintiffs’ federal claims. Venue is undisputed and 10 is hereby found to be proper. 11 II. Jury – Non-Jury 12 All parties have demanded a jury trial. Accordingly, 13 the action shall be tried, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 14 Procedure 48, before a jury consisting of six to nine jurors, and 15 the jury must be unanimous. The parties have agreed that the 16 court shall select nine jurors. 17 III. Statement of Case, Jury Instructions, and Proposed Form of 18 Verdict 19 No later than twenty-one days before the trial date, 20 the parties shall submit a joint statement of the case to be read 21 to the jury. 22 No later than twenty-one days before the trial 23 date, counsel for plaintiffs shall lodge and serve, pursuant to 24 Local Rule 163, copies of all jury instructions that plaintiffs 25 request be given on plaintiffs’ claims. At that time, counsel 26 1 As discussed in the court’s summary judgment order 27 (Docket No. 39 at 5-6), Officers Bruce and Maxwell are the only remaining defendants because plaintiffs have abandoned their 28 municipal liability claims. 1 for plaintiffs shall also file and serve a copy of a proposed 2 form of verdict. 3 No later than fourteen days before the trial date, 4 counsel for defendants shall file and serve any objections to the 5 instructions proposed by plaintiffs. At the same time, counsel 6 for defendants shall lodge and serve, pursuant to Local Rule 163, 7 copies of any and all jury instructions not already proposed by 8 plaintiffs, which defendants request be given. Also at that 9 time, counsel for defendants shall file and serve a copy of any 10 proposed form of verdict and shall also file any objections to 11 plaintiffs’ proposed form of verdict. 12 No later than seven days before the trial date, counsel 13 for plaintiffs shall file and serve any objections to the 14 instructions proposed by defendants and to any proposed form of 15 verdict. 16 Pursuant to Local Rule 163, any other instructions 17 thereafter presented will be refused unless it is shown either: 18 (1) that the necessity for the request arose in the course of 19 trial; could not reasonably have been anticipated prior to trial 20 from the pleadings, discovery or nature of the action; and the 21 request for such additional instructions is presented to the 22 court as promptly as possible; or (2) that the refusal to give 23 such instructions would constitute plain error. 24 Likewise, any objections to proposed instructions not 25 made in accordance with this order will be overruled as untimely 26 unless it is shown either: (1) that the grounds therefor arose in 27 the course of trial and the intention to make such objections is 28 communicated to the court as promptly as possible, or (2) that 1 the giving of such instructions would constitute plain error. 2 IV. Voir Dire Questions 3 No later than fourteen days before the trial date, 4 counsel for each party shall submit all proposed jury voir dire 5 questions they wish to have the court ask the jury. The court 6 will conduct the jury voir dire. Thereafter, each side shall 7 have 20 minutes for voir dire by counsel. 8 V. Trial Briefs 9 No later than fourteen days before the trial date, 10 counsel for each party shall file trial briefs, which shall 11 include any motions in limine, pursuant to Local Rule 285. 12 VI. Remaining Claims2 13 Plaintiffs’ claims for trial consist of the following: 14 (1) Fourth Amendment Unreasonable Detention and Arrest 15 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 16 (2) State Law Battery by a Peace Officer (wrongful death); 17 (3) State Law Negligence by a Peace Officer (wrongful 18 death); and 19 (4) Violation of California Civil Code Section 52.1 (Tom 20 Bane Act). 21 VII. Witnesses 22 (A) Plaintiffs anticipate calling the witnesses 23 identified at Exhibit “A” attached hereto. 24 (B) Defendants anticipate calling the witnesses 25 identified at Exhibit “B”, attached hereto. 26 (C) Except for retained experts, each party may call 27 2 It is agreed that no interlocutory appeal of the 28 court’s summary judgment order will be taken. 1 any witness designated by any other party. 2 (D) No other witnesses will be permitted to testify at 3 trial unless: 4 (1) all parties stipulate that the witness may 5 testify; 6 (2) the party offering the witness demonstrates 7 that the witness is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which 8 could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time of the 9 Pretrial Conference; or 10 (3) the witness was discovered after the Pretrial 11 Conference. 12 (E) Testimony of a witness not designated in this 13 Order, which is offered under paragraph VII(D)(3), above, upon 14 the grounds that the witness was discovered after the Pretrial 15 Conference, will not be permitted unless: 16 (1) the testimony of the witness could not 17 reasonably have been discovered prior to the Pretrial Conference; 18 (2) the court and opposing counsel were promptly 19 notified upon discovery of the testimony; and 20 (3) counsel proffered the witness for deposition 21 if time permitted or provided all opposing counsel a reasonable 22 summary of the testimony if time did not permit a deposition. 23 VIII. Exhibits 24 (A) Plaintiffs intend to offer the exhibits identified 25 at Exhibit “C” attached hereto. 26 (B) Defendants intend to offer the exhibits identified 27 at Exhibit “D”, attached hereto. 28 (C) Each party may offer any exhibit designated by any 1 other party. 2 (D) No other exhibits will be received in evidence 3 unless: 4 (1) all parties stipulate that the exhibit may be 5 received in evidence; 6 (2) the party offering the exhibit demonstrates 7 that the exhibit is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which 8 could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time of the 9 Pretrial Conference; or 10 (3) the exhibit was discovered after the Pretrial 11 Conference.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McLeod v. City of Redding, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

McLeod v. City of Redding (McLeod v. City of Redding) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court, 1999)