United States District Court, N.D. California
October 4, 2005.
TOMMIE E. PHILLIPS, SR., Plaintiff,
CITY OF RICHMOND, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: PHYLLIS HAMILTON, District Judge
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER
Before the court are plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of
this court's final pretrial order and his motion in limine to
exclude defendant's exhibit 31. Both motions have been opposed
and the court rules as follows:
1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART. At issue are five proposed exhibits which
were first listed on plaintiff's two supplemental exhibit lists
filed late, in violation of this court's order for pretrial
preparation. With regard to exhibits 69-72, the motion is DENIED
as plaintiff has provided no good cause for his untimeliness or
the relevance of the exhibits themselves and the court finds that
the failure to modify the pretrial order will not result in
manifest injustice. These exhibits may not be admitted at trial.
With regard to exhibit 73, the motion is GRANTED. Although it is
not clear from the papers where plaintiff got the document, it
does appear responsive to his discovery request and defendants do
not appear to have produced it. This document may be admitted at
trial, assuming the appropriate foundation and sponsoring
2. Plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude defendants' exhibit
31, is DENIED, as untimely and on the merits for the reasons
advanced by defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.