Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miller v. Rufion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION


December 1, 2009

GERALD L. MILLER, JR., CDCR #C-92075, PLAINTIFF,
v.
O. RUFION; MOONGA, R.N., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge

ORDER RE: VARIOUS MOTIONS [Doc. Nos. 30, 31, 32]

In a "Pretrial Motion Stipulation to Authentication of Documents," Plaintiff requests that the Court authenticate certain documents. The Court does not rule on the authenticity of documents before they are offered as exhibits at trial. Therefore, this motion [Doc. No. 30] is DENIED. If Plaintiff chooses to offer these documents as exhibits at trial, Plaintiff will be required to authenticate the documents as set forth in Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 901 and 902. If Plaintiff wishes, Plaintiff may serve requests for admission regarding the authenticity of the documents on Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. Plaintiff has also filed an "Ex Parte Motion for Appointment of Expert." Plaintiff is free to designate any expert he chooses. However, Plaintiff must bear any costs associated with the expert witness providing his opinion or testifying at trial. There is no authority for the Court bearing such costs. Therefore, this motion [Doc. No. 31] is DENIED.

Finally, Plaintiff has filed an "Ex Parte Motion for Subpoenas" [Doc. No. 32]. This motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's request for subpoenas ad testificandum are premature because the pretrial conference will not take place until September 7, 2010, and trial is not yet scheduled. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for these subpoenas is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew his request for the issuance of subpoenas ad testificandum at the pretrial conference. As for the subpoena duces tecum requested by Plaintiff, the Court directs the Clerk of the Eastern District of California to issue the subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, as directed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). Plaintiff is responsible for serving the subpoena, coordinating the production of the documents, and paying any copying costs that might apply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20091201

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.