(PC) McCoy v. Holguin

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 23, 2025
• Docket: 1:15-cv-00768
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAKEITH LEROY MCCOY, No. 1:15-cv-00768-KES-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY PRETRIAL ORDER TO ADD 13 v. INADVERTENTLY OMITTED EXHIBIT 14 A. HOLGUIN, et al., 15 Defendants. Doc. 254 16 17 18 After reviewing the amended final pretrial order, filed January 6, 2025, defense counsel 19 recognized that an exhibit, sign-in sheets for March 12, 2015, had been inadvertently omitted 20 from their exhibit list. Doc. 254 at 3. Defendants A. Holguin, C. Casillas, D. King, V. Moore, J. 21 Gonzales, A. Martinez, S. Lomas, O. Delgado, E. Barron, Montanez, Mayfield, Moreno, C. 22 Martinez, G. Arellano, and Hollis Bennett (“defendants”) now move to modify the amended final 23 pretrial order to add the sign-in sheets as an exhibit. Docs. 252, 254. Plaintiff LaKeith Leroy 24 McCoy (“plaintiff”) timely filed an opposition on January 21, 2025. Doc. 264. For the reasons 25 set forth below, defendants’ motion is granted.1 26 Once the district court has entered a pretrial order, modifications are allowed “only to 27

28 1 As noted below, plaintiff may object to the admissibility of this exhibit at trial. 1 prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). In determining whether to grant a 2 modification, courts generally consider the following four factors:

3 (1) the degree of prejudice or surprise to the [nonmoving party] if the order is modified; (2) the ability of the [nonmoving party] to 4 cure any prejudice; (3) the impact of the modification on the orderly and efficient conduct of the case; (4) any degree of 5 willfulness or bad faith on the part of the party seeking the modification. 6 7 Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 1998), superseded by statute on other grounds. “It 8 is the moving party’s burden to show that a review of these factors warrants a conclusion that 9 manifest injustice would result if the pretrial order is not modified.” Id. 10 A consideration of these factors indicates that modification of the amended final pretrial 11 order to include the inadvertently omitted exhibit is warranted. First, the sign-in sheets do not 12 result in any prejudice or surprise to plaintiff. Defendants relied on the sign-in sheets in their 13 motion for summary judgment, filed on September 7, 2022. Doc. 194-6, Ex. A. Plaintiff 14 therefore has had ample opportunity to consider the sign-in sheets in preparing for trial. Second, 15 plaintiff will have an opportunity to argue the relevance and weight of these sign-in sheets, 16 including raising any objection to the admissibility of the exhibit, eliminating any potential 17 prejudice at trial. Third, adding one exhibit, the sign-in sheets, will not materially impact the 18 orderly and efficient conduct of the case. No other aspects of the pretrial order will need to be 19 adjusted to accommodate the new exhibit, and introduction of the exhibit will have a minimal 20 impact on the length of the trial. Fourth, there is no indication of any willfulness or bad faith by 21 defendants in omitting this exhibit in their initial pretrial statement. Defendants declared under 22 penalty of perjury that the sign-in sheets were either inadvertently omitted from the exhibit list in 23 the pretrial statement or were deleted during final formatting of the document. Doc. 254 at 6. 24 This declaration and defendants’ prior use of the sign-in sheets in support of their motion for 25 summary judgment indicate that the omission of the exhibit from the pretrial statement was an 26 honest mistake by defendants. 27 In his opposition, plaintiff requests “reports and testimony [regarding] officers having 28 1 | been disciplined for signing the work sign-in sheets under other officers’ names and some officers 2 | not being at work when they should have while allowing other officers to sign in for them.” 3 | Doc. 264 at 4. This request is denied as discovery has long been closed in this matter. 4 | Defendants’ inadvertent omission of the exhibit from their pretrial statement does not warrant 5 || reopening discovery, particularly as defendants previously relied on this exhibit in support of 6 | their motion for summary judgment. 7 Plaintiff also requests that he be allowed to amend the complaint to join the officers that 8 || are named on the sign-in sheets. A motion to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 | 15(a)(2) “generally shall be denied only upon showing of bad faith, undue delay, futility, or 10 | undue prejudice to the opposing party.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 11 1152 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff's request to amend is denied. Trial is set to begin in just over four 12 || weeks and plaintiff has long had notice of the sign-in sheets, as defendants relied on them in 13 || moving for summary judgment in 2022. Plaintiff had ample time to move to amend the 14 | complaint, and discovery has long been closed. Docs. 108, 187. Given the age and procedural 15 | history of this case, an amendment at this late stage in the proceedings, on the eve of trial, would 16 | cause undue delay and would result in undue prejudice to defendants. See Texaco, Inc. v. 17 | Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 799 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming denial of leave to amend four months 18 | before trial and after discovery had closed). 19 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 20 1. Defendants’ motion to modify the amended final pretrial order to add the sign-in 21 sheets as an exhibit, Doc. 254, is GRANTED. The amended final pretrial order, 22 Doc. 252, is so amended by this Order to include the additional exhibit. 23 2. Plaintiff's request to amend the complaint, Doc. 264, is DENIED. 24 25 26 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 27 Dated: _ January 23, 2025 4h 3g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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