UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
May 5, 2013
ALMA BURRELL, VICKYE HAYTER, MARGARET HEADD, PLAINTIFFS,
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, DAN PEDDYCORD, RAE WEDEL, MARTY FENSTERSHEIB AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART OBJECTIONS TO VICKYE HAYTER PROFFER
The Court's Pre-Trial Conference Order ordered Plaintiff to file a "detailed proffer of Vickye Hayter's testimony" by 4 p.m. on Friday, May 3, 2013, and ordered Defendants to file a 19 response by noon on Monday, May 6, 2013. ECF No. 111. Contrary to the Court's Order, Plaintiff's proffer, ECF No. 114, is a list of general topics with no identification of specific facts to 20 which Ms. Hayter would testify or the basis of Ms. Hayter's knowledge. Defendant filed its 21 response on Sunday, May 5, 2013. ECF No. 130.
Having considered the parties' submissions and the record in this case, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's objections as to topics 1 through 10 identified in Plaintiff's "Vickey 23 [sic] Hayter Trial Testimony Proffer," ECF No. 114. The Court SUSTAINS Defendant's objections to topics 11-14 in Plaintiff's "Vickey [sic] Hayter Trial Testimony Proffer," ECF No. 24 114, because Plaintiff has failed to show that the probative value of such testimony substantially 25 outweighs the danger of confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.