UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 2, 2011
COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge.
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO FILE A LIMITED REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (DOC. 342)
Plaintiff requests leave to file a limited Reply to Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact regarding the issue of the video that was shown to the jury through witness Bianco. The video was admitted for impeachment purposes under the exception to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 for evidence offered "solely for impeachment." In its objections to Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact, Defendant stated: "[The video] counters the credibility of plaintiff's testimony on the first element plaintiff must prove to prevail, that he was disabled under the ADA." Plaintiff suggests that this language amounts to an admission that the video was "not offered, nor intended to be offered, solely for impeachment purposes and should have been excluded from the trial for a violation of FRCP 26 -- a failure to produce prior to trial...." Doc. 342 at 2.
This is nonsensical for two reasons. First, language in Defendant's objections does not reference any purpose other than impeachment as to the evidence offered in support of a particular element of Plaintiff's claim. Second, the evidence was admitted for the purposes of impeachment only, limiting its use by the advisory jury to that purpose only. The jury was appropriately admonished. There is no basis for additional briefing on this issue. The request to file a limited reply is DENIED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.