United States District Court, N.D. California
FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER
WILLIAM ALSUP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Good Cause and after a final pretrial conference, the
following constitutes the final pretrial order and rulings on
motions in limine:
case shall go to a jury trial on July 25, 2016, at 7:30 a.m.,
and shall continue until completed on the schedule discussed
at the conference. The issues to be tried shall be those set
forth in the joint proposed pretrial order except to the
extent modified by order in limine. This final
pretrial order supersedes the complaint, answer and any
counterclaims, cross-claims or third-party complaints,
i.e., only the issues expressly identified for trial
remain in the case.
Rulings on the motions in limine were made on the
record at the pretrial conference and are summarized later in
Except for good cause, each party is limited to the witnesses
and exhibits disclosed in the joint proposed final pretrial
order less any excluded or limited by an order in
limine. Materials or witnesses used solely for
impeachment need not be disclosed and may be used, subject to
the rules of evidence.
stipulations of facts set forth in the joint proposed final
pretrial order are approved and binding on all parties.
jury of 8 persons shall be used.
side shall have three-and-a-half hours to examine witnesses
(counting direct examination, cross-examination, re-direct
examination, re-cross examination, etc.). Opening statements
and closing arguments shall not count against the limit. If,
despite being efficient, non-duplicative, and
non-argumentative in the use of the allotted time, one side
runs out of time and it would be a miscarriage of justice to
hold that side to the limit, then more time will be allotted.
parties shall follow the Court’s current Guidelines
for Trial and Final Pretrial Conference in Civil
Jury Cases, separately provided and available on the
Internet at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, which
guidelines are incorporated as part of this order.
ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Motions in Limine.
Exclude Plaintiff’s Past Convictions.
motion is Granted.
counsel raised the possibility of including a jury
instruction regarding the credibility of the plaintiff such
that the jury would be allowed to infer that plaintiff has a