The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC TRIALCONFIRMATION HEARING, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED WITNESSES, AND CONTINUING MOTIONS IN LIMINE FILING DEADLINE TO DECEMBER 21, 2012
Motion in Limine Deadline: 12/21/2012 Opposition Deadline: 01/02/2013 Motions in Limine Hearing: 01/09/2013, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 7 (SKO)
I. Order Following Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing
This matter is set for jury trial on January 15, 2013, and the parties appeared by telephone on December 5, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. for the trial confirmation hearing. The following issues were addressed and resolved during the hearing.
A. Plaintiff's Motion for the Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses
On September 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a timely motion for the attendance of inmate witnesses James Cardinel, Jimmy Reed, John Bengar, and David Reed. (Doc. 91, pp. 18-23.) Defendant opposed the motion on three grounds: (1) Plaintiff did not meet the specific requirements set forth in the second scheduling order, (2) the witnesses' proposed testimony is cumulative, and (3) the witnesses' testimony will not substantially further the resolution of the case and the benefit of their presence is outweighed by security risks and transportation costs.
For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is granted as to James Cardinel and Jimmy Reed and denied as to John Bengar and David Reed, and the transportation writs have been issued.
1. Compliance with Second Scheduling Order Requirements
a) Inmates James Cardinel and Jimmy Reed
With respect to inmate witnesses James Cardinel and Jimmy Reed, Plaintiff submitted his own declaration and the witnesses' declarations. Both Cardinel and Reed attest that they are willing to testify voluntarily on Plaintiff's behalf.
Based on the declarations submitted and Plaintiff's additional representations during the hearing, inmates Cardinel and Reed saw and heard (1) Plaintiff ask Defendant Saenz for medical care and (2) Defendant Saenz's responses. This is sufficient to satisfy the Court that inmates Cardinel and Reed were ear and/or eye witnesses to relevant events, and Plaintiff is entitled to their presence at trial.
b) Inmates John Bengar and David Reed
The declarations submitted by Plaintiff with respect to inmates John Bengar and David Reed were sufficiently vague to necessitate further inquiry during the hearing, at which time Plaintiff conceded that they do not have firsthand knowledge of relevant events and Plaintiff ...