United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER RE: DKT. NOS. 671, 675-678,
M. Whyte United States District Judge
final pretrial conference in this matter, the court requested
supplemental briefing on several matters. That briefing and
more has now been received. The court rules as follows.
LODGING OF EXHIBITS
stated in this court’s prior orders, the parties must
provide the court with copies of any proposed, case-in-chief
trial exhibits in advance of trial. The court needs to see those
exhibits so that it can rule on any evidentiary objections.
By 3:30 pm on Friday, July 29, 2016, plaintiffs shall lodge
with the undersigned judge’s courtroom deputy
electronic copies of any exhibits that they plan to offer in
their case-in-chief at trial.
appears that the only two exhibits on which defendant seeks
to rely are two state court orders declaring Mr. Hiramanek a
vexatious litigant which have already been filed on
See Dkt. No. 676. If the court is mistaken about
defendant’s submissions, defendant must also comply
with the July 29, 2016 lodging deadline. Upon a party’s
request, the court can return the storage medium (e.g. a
thumb drive or DVD) used to deliver the exhibits, after the
court has copied the storage medium’s contents.
trial of plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Miller
will commence with jury selection at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday,
August 2, 2016. The proceedings will commence each day at
9:00 a.m. with appropriate meal and rest breaks except on
August 5 when the hours of the session may have to be
modified. The presentation of the case should be completed on
or before August 5. If for some unexpected reason the
presentation of the case has not been completed by August 5,
the trial will resume on August 15.
Hiramanek asserts that Ms. Hiramanek has a doctor’s
appointment scheduled for August 3, 2016 at 10 a.m. Dkt. No.
688 Ex. A. Nevertheless, Mr. Hiramanek asserts that
“Plaintiffs’ [sic] do not have the option of a
fourth rescheduled trial date.” Dkt. No. 688 at 3. If
Ms. Hiramanek is unable to reschedule her doctor’s
appointment, the court will consider adjusting the schedule
for August 3.
side will be allotted 8 hours of presentation time, including
opening statements, but not including closing statements or
jury selection. Any time a party takes seeking to present
inadmissible material may be deducted from that party’s
presentation time. Similarly, if any party makes repeated,
meritless objections, the court may deduct time from the
objecting party’s allotment.
JURY SELECTION AND VOIR DIRE
court will question potential jurors and will take the
parties’ proposals for voir dire questions into account
in determining which questions it will ask. The voir dire
process the court will use is as follows. The court will
initially examine twenty prospective jurors and then allow
counsel for each side up to ten minutes for follow-up
questions. After the parties exercise any challenges for
cause (to be done at sidebar outside the hearing of the
prospective jurors), the courtroom deputy will hand the
parties a list with the prospective jurors numbered one
through the number of prospective jurors who remain after
challenges for cause. The parties will then pass the list
between themselves exercising up to three peremptory
challenges (three per side maximum). A pass does not count as
a challenge. After the parties exercise their peremptory
challenges, the examined jurors will be asked to return to
the public seats in the courtroom and the eight who will
serve as the jury will be called back to the jury box by the
courtroom deputy. The jurors will be the first eight
unchallenged prospective jurors on the list provided to the
EXAMINATION AND PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
court is aware that both plaintiffs are representing
themselves and that Mr. Hiramanek has been assisting Ms.
Hiramanek in preparation of this case. Plaintiffs must
understand that Mr. Hiramanek cannot act as Ms.
Hiramanek’s attorney, but the court will allow some
leeway to assist Ms. Hiramanek in presenting her case. The
plaintiffs may call each other as witnesses. Alternatively,
the court will allow the Hiramaneks to provide their direct
testimony in a narrative fashion, assuming they limit their
narratives to relevant testimony. If they fail to do so, they
will be required to ask themselves questions or announce the
intended subject matter of testimony to come so that the
court can determine the testimony’s relevance to issues
remaining in the case. For example, testimony regarding
alleged failure to accommodate a disability is irrelevant to
issues remaining in the case.