IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 16, 2009
JAMES LI, PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL SHELTZER, AND TULARE COUNTY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EXHIBITS, (Doc. No. 126)
Plaintiff objects to the foundation of all defense exhibits save one and generally objects on Rule of Evidence 402, 403, and 404 grounds. Plaintiff filed his objections on March 13, 2009. See Court's Docket Doc. No. 126. However, the pre-trial order states that objections to exhibits are to be filed and served no later than March 11, 2009. See id. at Doc. No. 98 at p. 10. Plaintiff did not comply with the pre-trial order. Because the objections are untimely and in violation of the pre-trial order, they are overruled with two exceptions.
Plaintiff has identified two exhibits that were not included in the joint pre-trial statement -- Defendants' exhibits 2042 (an e-mail dated February 4, 2009) and 2048 (Plaintiff's DFEH complaint against San Diego County). See Court's Docket Doc. No. 126. The pre-trial order states that exhibits not included in the joint pre-trial statement will not be permitted to be offered into evidence. See id. at Doc. No. 98 at p. 10. In light of this warning, the Court will not regard these two objections as untimely, but will instead hear arguments regarding these exhibits on the morning of March 18, 2009.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court will hear arguments on the morning of March 18, 2009, regarding the admissibility of defense exhibits 2042 and 2048 on the ground that these exhibits were not identified in the joint pre-trial statement; and
2. Plaintiff's remaining objections to Defendants' exhibits are OVERRULED as untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.