(PC) Thompson v. Gomez

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 15, 2022·No. 1:18-cv-00125·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MARK SHANE THOMPSON, ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-00125-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 v. ) TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

14 A. GOMEZ, et al., ) Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing: ) September 2, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) Telephonic Motions in Limine Hearing: ) October 5, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. 17 ) ) 18 ) Jury Trial: October 17, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 (SAB); 2-3 Days 19 ) ) 20 Plaintiff Mark Shane Thompson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 21 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All parties consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 22 109.) 23 This action is proceeding against Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendants Gomez, 24 Weiss, Sazo, and Gray, and on Plaintiff’s related failure to intervene claim against Defendants 25 Johnson and Busby, arising from a takedown incident that took place on May 30, 2017. This matter 26 was set for a telephonic hearing on September 2, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. for purposes of a trial confirmation 27 hearing. The matter is now set for a 2 to 3 day jury trial beginning on October 17, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. 28 1 In preparation of trial, the parties are required to file Pretrial Statements in accordance with the 2 schedule set forth herein. In addition to the matters already required to be addressed in the pretrial 3 statement in accordance with Local Rule 281, Plaintiff will be required to make a particularized 4 showing in order to obtain the attendance of witnesses. The procedures and requirements for making 5 such a showing are outlined in detail below. 6 1. Pretrial Statement (Local Rule 281) 7 Pursuant to Local Rule 281, the parties shall file a Pretrial Statement. Plaintiff shall file his 8 Pretrial Statement no later than August 2, 2022. Defendants shall file their Pretrial Statement no later 9 than August 16, 2022. The Telephonic Trial Confirmation hearing will be held September 2, 2022, at 10 9:30 a.m. before the United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone in Courtroom 9. 11 The form and content of the Pretrial Statement must comply with Local Rule 281. Pursuant to 12 Local Rule 281(b), the Pretrial Statement shall including the following matters, under the following 13 captions, and in the following order: 14 (1) Jurisdiction – Venue. The factual and statutory basis of federal jurisdiction and venue 15 and whether there is any dispute concerning jurisdiction or venue; 16 (2) Jury – Non-Jury. Whether the party has demanded a jury trial of all or any of the 17 issues or, if not, whether a demand for jury trial made by any other party is conceded or contested; 18 (3) Undisputed Facts. A plain, concise statement of the facts that are undisputed; 19 (4) Disputed Factual Issues. A plain, concise statement of each fact (and any related 20 essential facts) that the party claims or concedes to be in dispute; 21 (5) Disputed Evidentiary Issues. A plain, concise summary of any reasonably anticipated 22 disputes concerning admissibility of live and deposition testimony, physical and demonstrative 23 evidence and the use of special technology at trial, including computer animation, video discs, and 24 other high technology, and a statement whether each such dispute should be resolved by motion in 25 limine, briefed in the trial, brief, or addressed in some other manner; 26 (6) Special Factual Information in Certain Actions. In addition to the facts and issues 27 described in (3) through (5), the following special information with respect to the following types of 28 actions shall be specified within either the disputed or undisputed facts sections as appropriate: 1 (A) The date, place, and general nature of the incident; the particular acts, 2 omissions, or conditions constituting the basis for liability; the particular acts, omissions or conditions 3 constituting the basis of any defense; any statute, ordinance, or regulation violated by either party; the 4 applicability of the doctrine of strict liability or res ipsa loquitur. 5 (B) Each plaintiff’s age; injuries sustained; any prior injury or condition worsened; 6 periods of hospitalization; medical expenses and estimated future medical expenses; the period of total 7 and/or partial disability; annual, monthly, or weekly earnings before the incident; earnings loss to date 8 and estimated diminution of future earnings power; property damage; general damages; punitive 9 damages; 10 (7) Relief Sought. The elements of monetary damage, if any, and the specific nature of any 11 other relief sought; 12 (8) Points of Law. A statement of the legal theory or theories of recovery or of defense 13 and of any points of law (substantive or procedural) that are or may reasonably be expected to be in 14 controversy, citing the pertinent statues, ordinances, regulations, cases, and other authorities relied 15 upon. Extended legal argument is not required in the pretrial statement; 16 (9) Abandoned Issues. A statement of all issues raised by the pleadings that have been 17 abandoned, including, for example, claims for relief and affirmative defenses; 18 (10) Witnesses. A list (names and addresses) of all prospective witnesses, whether offered 19 in person or by deposition or interrogatory, designating those who are expert witnesses. Only 20 witnesses so listed will be permitted to testify at the trial, except as may be otherwise provided in the 21 pretrial order; 22 (11) Exhibits – Schedules and Summaries. A list of documents or other exhibits that the 23 party expects to offer at trial. Only exhibits so listed will be permitted to be offered at trial except as 24 may be otherwise provided in the pretrial order. 25 (12) Discovery Documents. A list of all portions of depositions, answers to interrogatories, 26 and responses to requests for admission that the party expects to offer at trial; 27 (13) Further Discovery or Motions. Any requests for further discovery or pretrial 28 motions. Whether discovery and/or law and motion has been terminated by a Court order, counsel 1 shall set forth the grounds for relief from that order and why a motion to be relieved was not made 2 before the date ordered in the status conference for termination. Motions for relief at pretrial are not 3 favored and will ordinarily be denied unless the moving party makes a strong showing; 4 (14) Stipulations. Any stipulations requested or offered for pretrial or trial purposes; 5 (15) Amendments – Dismissals. Any requested amendments to pleadings, dismissals, 6 additions or subtractions of parties, or dispositions as to defaulting parties; 7 (16) Settlement Negotiations. A statement whether settlement negotiations between parties 8 and/or a court settlement conference under L.R. 270 would be helpful; 9 (17) Agreed Statements. A statement whether presentation of all or part of the action upon 10 an Agreed Statement of Facts is feasible and advisable; 11 (18) Separate Trial of Issues. A statement whether separate trial of any of the issues is 12 feasible and advisable; 13 (19) Impartial Experts – Limitation of Experts. A statement whether appointment by the 14 Court of impartial expert witnesses or limitation of the number of experts witnesses is advisable; 15 (20) Attorneys’ Fees. A statement whether attorney’s fees are sought and the time and 16 manner in which they are to be ascertained. See L.R. 293; 17 (21) Trial Exhibits. Any special handling of trial exhibits and a statement of advisability of 18 court retention of exhibits pending appeal decision. See L.R. 138(e); 19 (22) Trial Protective Order. Whether a trial protective order will be sought pursuant to 20 L.R. 141.1(b)(2); and 21 (23) Miscellaneous.

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

(PC) Thompson v. Gomez, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

(PC) Thompson v. Gomez ((PC) Thompson v. Gomez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Luce v. United States
469 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 1984)
United States v. Heller
551 F.3d 1108 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Colton v. Stanford
23 P. 16 (California Supreme Court, 1890)