Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AERITH NATALIA ASORA,
`
`
`
`
`
`G. UGWUEZE, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No.: 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB
`
`SECOND AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER
`
`Deadlines:
`
`Motions in Limine Filing: July 8, 2025
`Oppositions to Motions in Limine: July 18, 2025
`
`Trial Submissions: August 11, 2025
`
`Jury trial: August 26, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., 3-4 days
`estimate
`
`
`
`Plaintiff brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendants Arietta, Hashemi, Igbinosa,
`
`Kokor and Ugwueze, with claims arising under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to
`
`serious medical needs, for medical negligence against those defendants plus defendant Pacheco, and
`
`for battery against defendant Ugwueze.
`
`On July 15, 2024, in anticipation of a November 13, 2024 jury trial, the Court conducted a
`
`pretrial conference via Zoom videoconferencing. Plaintiff Aerith Natalia Asora appeared pro se; James
`
`W. Walter appeared as counsel for defendants. On August 21, 2024, the Court issued an amended
`
`pretrial order. (Doc. 91.) On September 30, 2024, in response to an unopposed motion from Plaintiff
`
`indicating that she anticipated undergoing major surgery, the Court continued the trial to August 26,
`
`2025, and remanded to the assigned magistrate judge other scheduling matters, including a Defense
`
`request to re-open discovery on a limited issue. (Doc. 94.) On November 25, 2024, the magistrate
`
`
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`judge granted Defendants’ request for discovery and denied their request to file a summary judgment
`
`motion. (Doc. 97.) Considering the above, the Court issues this second amended pretrial order.
`
`A.
`
`JURISDICTION/ VENUE
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and
`
`supplemental jurisdiction for Plaintiff’s claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In
`
`addition, the events that gave rise to this action occurred in Corcoran, California. Accordingly, venue
`
`is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391.
`
`B.
`
`JURY TRIAL
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Defendants demanded a jury trial in this matter. (Doc. 30.) The jury trial will consist of eight
`
`11
`
`jurors.
`
`12
`
`C.
`
`UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Plaintiff identifies the following undisputed facts:
`
`1. Plaintiff does not dispute jurisdiction.
`
`2. Plaintiff acknowledges that defendants demanded a jury by trial, plaintiff is unaware of why
`
`there are 8 jurors and not 12 but does not contest.
`
`3. Plaintiff has been incarcerated since July 20th, 2007, not 2009 for a murder committed on
`
`July 19th, 2007 in San Diego.
`
`4. No dispute as to plaintiff’s previous name and gender.
`
`5. Plaintiff does not dispute being housed at CSATF in 2015-2016.
`
`6. No dispute that plaintiff was previously housed at CSP-LAC.
`
`7. No dispute, plaintiff was transferred to VSP and had spinal surgery.
`
`Defendants identify the following undisputed facts:
`
`1. Plaintiff has been incarcerated since 2009 after being convicted in San Diego County of
`
`murder.
`
`2. Plaintiff was previously known as Nathanial Gann. Medical providers referred to Plaintiff
`
`with male pronouns prior to Plaintiff receiving gender affirmation care, unaware Plaintiff
`
`was transgender.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`3. Plaintiff was housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) in
`
`Corcoran, California from January 2015 until December 29, 2016.
`
`4. While at SATF, Plaintiff received medical care from the doctors and nurses named in this
`
`action, excepting Dr. Ugwueze, Chief Medical Officer at SATF, who was not involved in
`
`her day-to-day care.
`
`5. Prior to being housed at SATF, Plaintiff was incarcerated at California State Prison, Los
`
`Angeles in Lancaster, California.
`
`6. Medical personnel at the prison in Lancaster completed forms that listed Plaintiff’s
`
`medications and diagnoses.
`
`7. Following her incarceration at SATF, Plaintiff was transferred to Valley State Prison where
`
`she underwent a laminectomy and a discectomy of her back in February 2017.
`
`12
`
`D.
`
`DISPUTED FACTS
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Plaintiff identifies the following disputed facts:
`
`1. Defendant Ugwueze may not have been involved in the day-to-day care but was involved
`
`in plaintiff’s medical care from 1/13/2015 when he first approved non-formulary
`
`prescription for Topamax and continued to be involved in plaintiff’s care including
`
`battering plaintiff physically and involved regularly with plaintiff’s medical appeals and
`
`dialogue with plaintiff’s concerned friends.
`
`2. Medical records from CSP-LAC are incomplete, hand-written and do not list all of
`
`plaintiff’s medications/diagnoses (mostly illegible).
`
`3. Plaintiff agrees that many of the items listed by defendants are considered disputed.
`
`
`
`Defendants identify the following disputed facts:
`
`1.
`
`Whether Plaintiff sought medical care prior to January 13, 2015, from any SATF
`
`healthcare provider.
`
`2.
`
`Whether medication provided to Plaintiff caused her to become lightheaded and to
`
`faint on numerous occasions and to suffer allergic reactions. And relatedly, whether it
`
`caused Plaintiff to fall from her upper bunk, sustaining a frank herniation of the L4
`
`disc in her spine and leading to surgery.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Whether Plaintiff was misdiagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD,
`
`rather than a necrotic pancreas, causing years of suffering.
`
`Whether medical records support most of Plaintiff’s claims.
`
`Whether Plaintiff was diagnosed with epilepsy at the prison in Lancaster.
`
`Whether Plaintiff’s list of allergies included any medications dispensed by SATF
`
`doctors.
`
`7.
`
`Whether Dr. Kokor prescribed appropriate medications for asthma, hypertension,
`
`migraine headaches, and depression when Plaintiff began treatment.
`
`8.
`
`Whether Dr. Kokor’s notes reflect Plaintiff’s claims of back pain before December
`
`2016.
`
`9.
`
`Whether Dr. Kokor’s notes show Plaintiff’s most common complaints were
`
`gastrointestinal related. And relatedly, whether Kokor referred Plaintiff to a
`
`gastrointestinal specialist when her complaints of stomach pain persisted.
`
`10. Whether diagnostic testing revealed an abnormality with Plaintiff’s pancreas and
`
`whether she received appropriate treatment as a result.
`
`11. Whether a necrotic pancreas viewed on a CT scan was treated appropriately given
`
`Plaintiff’s symptoms.
`
`12. Whether Dr. Kokor provided Plaintiff with care recommended by the specialist.
`
`13. Whether Plaintiff’s subsequent care from other SATF medical staff reveals a failure
`
`to treat or failure to properly diagnose.
`
`14. Whether Drs. Hashemi and Igbinosa acted appropriately when presented with
`
`Plaintiff’s complaints of physical pain. And relatedly, whether those doctors kept
`
`accurate records.
`
`15. Whether the medical records support Plaintiff’s complaints and recollections.
`
`16. Whether Dr. Kokor’s notes reveal medical providers believed Plaintiff was lying
`
`about the cause of her injury.
`
`17. Whether Dr. Hashemi provided Plaintiff with adequate medical care.
`
`18. Whether Dr. Igbinosa and Nurse Pacheco refused Plaintiff medical care.
`
`
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`19. Whether Dr. Igbinosa accused Plaintiff of playing an April fool’s joke when she
`
`complained of a fall on that date. And relatedly, whether Igbinosa continued to
`
`provide appropriate treatment for back pain.
`
`20. Whether Nurse Arietta denied Plaintiff’s requests for emergency care in July 2016.
`
`21. Whether further care at SATF included use of a wheelchair and further referrals.
`
`22. Whether medications provided and administered by SATF personnel accorded with
`
`Plaintiff’s medication list.
`
`E.
`
`DISPUTED LEGAL ISSUES
`
`Plaintiff identifies the following disputed legal issues:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff disputes the lack of legal counsel, believing that an appointed attorney is the
`
`only way to have a fair trial.
`
`Plaintiff anticipates an improper motion for dismissal based upon defendants’ statement
`
`at the pretrial conference that they were going to file a motion for dismissal that is way
`
`past the eligibility date set by this court that would prejudice plaintiff.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`F.
`
`DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES/MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Plaintiff anticipates that defendants will try to introduce improper evidence from her Central
`
`File that have no relevance to the case only to prejudice the jury improperly. Further, Plaintiff believes
`
`that defendants will attempt to bring forth witnesses that have nothing to contribute to the case only
`
`confuse the jury such as medical professionals from VSP or other irrelevant testimony.
`
`Plaintiff believes that defendants will improperly address plaintiff's conviction and term of
`
`confinement, and plaintiff intends to suppress most of that information or to press for a jointly
`
`approved statement on the issue, additionally the plaintiff anticipates filing a motion for how she is to
`
`appear in court. Specifically, so that she can dress in a manner that does not represent her as an
`
`"inmate" but rather a human being. The Court advises Plaintiff that if she wishes to appear in
`
`“street clothes,” she must arrange to have the clothes provided to the U.S. Marshal Service in
`
`advance of the trial. She must contact the U.S. Marshal Service to determine their procedures as
`
`to how and when the clothes are to be provided.
`
`Defendants state they anticipate Plaintiff will attempt to introduce documentary evidence that
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`would be inadmissible due to hearsay and other objections. Defendants further anticipate issues
`
`concerning the introduction of character evidence, or evidence concerning defendants’ care provided
`
`to other inmates, leading to objections of improper character evidence, relevance, and a lack of
`
`foundation. Defendants also anticipate issues concerning the standard of care and statements
`
`purportedly made to Plaintiff by non-witnesses. Defendants anticipate the issues can be addressed by
`
`motion in limine.
`
`Both parties intend to file motions in limine regarding the evidence to be used at trial. The
`
`purpose of a motion in limine is to establish in advance of the trial that certain evidence should not be
`
`offered at trial. “Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings,
`
`the practice has developed pursuant to the district court’s inherent authority to manage the course of
`
`trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984); Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family
`
`Services, 115 F. 3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). The court will grant a motion in limine, and thereby bar
`
`use of the evidence in question, only if the moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is not
`
`admissible for any valid purpose. Id. The court does not encourage the filing of motions in limine
`
`unless they are addressed to issues that can realistically be resolved by the court prior to trial and
`
`without reference to the other evidence which will be introduced by the parties at trial.
`
`In advance of filing any motion in limine, the parties SHALL meet and confer to
`
`determine whether they can resolve any disputes and avoid filing motions in limine. Along with
`
`their motions in limine, the parties SHALL file a certification demonstrating the parties have in
`
`good faith met and conferred and attempted to resolve the dispute. Failure to provide the
`
`certification may result in the court refusing to entertain the motion.
`
`Any motions in limine must be filed with the court no later than July 8, 2025. The motion must
`
`clearly identify the nature of the evidence that the moving party seeks to prohibit the other side from
`
`offering at trial. Any opposition to the motion must be served on the other party and filed with the
`
`court no later than July 11, 2025. The Court will not set a hearing on the motions in limine unless,
`
`after receiving the motions, it appears a hearing is needed.
`
`27
`
`G.
`
`SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION
`
`Defendants identify (1) the date, place, and general nature of the incident, and (2) plaintiff’s
`
`6
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`age and the injuries sustained, as special factual information in this action.
`
`H.
`
`RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Plaintiff seeks money damages. In her First Amended Complaint, plaintiff seeks: “General
`
`damages in the amount of $3,200,000. Special Damages for loss of earning capacity and future
`
`medical costs, compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000,000 for pain and suffering and
`
`emotional, psychological, spiritual distress, legal fees, and puntative [sic] damages in the amount of
`
`$250,000.00 from each defendant.”
`
`
`
`Plaintiff contends that defendants do not have any costs associated with this litigation, as the
`
`Attorney General’s Office is handling the litigation, further plaintiff’s stay at CDCR is expected to end
`
`in November of 2026 or earlier as she has met the Board of Parole Hearing requirements given her at
`
`her consultation (and has 180 day pending credit for more good time). Therefore, defendants are
`
`wrong about plaintiff's future earnings as well as medical care to be provided, i.e. plaintiff is in need of
`
`a second surgery at least, that CDCR cancelled and she will have to pursue after release, enduring
`
`additional pain as well as economic damages.
`
`Defendants
`
`Defendants seek judgment in their favor and an award of costs. On the other hand, defendants
`
`assert that plaintiff “has no bills to pay for the care that was provided to her by CDCR. She further has
`
`no wage loss claim. Her general or noneconomic damages are the only damages she may recover.”
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`I.
`
`ABANDONED ISSUES
`
`21
`
`
`
`None.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`J. WITNESSES
`
`1.
`
`The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including
`
`rebuttal and impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS
`
`SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A
`
`SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST
`
`INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(10).
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Witnesses
`
`1. Jose Ibanez
`
`2. Alexander Hochstraser
`
`3. Matthew Hall
`
`4. Mitchell Khan1
`
`5. Pamela Cipriottii
`
`6. Anthony Hales, N.P.
`
`7. Chander P. Malhotra
`
`8. Harold D. Segal
`
`9. R. Scharffenberg
`
`10. Plaintiff
`
`Defendants’ Witnesses2
`
`1. Catherine Arrieta, R.N., retired
`
`2. Ranier Bansuan, M.D., Valley State Prison
`
`3. Harpreet Gil, Valley State Prison
`
`4. Nastran Hashemi, M.D., SATF
`
`5. Ngozi Igbinosa, M.D., SATF
`
`6. Teresa Jamison, L.V.N., Valley State Prison
`
`7. Winfred Kokor, M.D., SATF
`
`8. Michelle Pacheco, R.N., SATF
`
`9. Katherine Pena, L.V.N., Valley State Prison
`
`10. C. Stronach, R.N., SATF
`
`
`1 The Court has ruled on Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 70; Doc. 86) for attendance of incarcerated witnesses (Doc. 76). The
`Court granted the motion as to Alexander Hochstraser and Jose Manuel Ibanez, but denied it as to two others, including
`Mathew Hall, because they were not in the custody of the CDCR. Plaintiff did not seek to have Mitchell Kahn testify at
`trial (Doc. 70), so he will not be ordered to appear. Plaintiff may have unincarcerated people testify at trial if they agree to
`do so voluntarily. The Court previously advised Plaintiff as to how to have subpoenas issued. This procedure was set forth
`in the Court’s order issued on June 5, 2023. (Doc. 68 at 4-5). She did not complete this procedure.
`
` 2
`
` Plaintiff objects to defendants’ witnesses for various reasons. However, objections to witnesses may be made by filing
`motions in limine or at the time of trial.
`
`
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`11. Godwin Ugwueze, C.M.E., SATF
`
`12. LaKenya Walls, L.V.N., Valley State Prison
`
`2.
`
`The court does not allow undisclosed witnesses to be called for any purpose,
`
`including impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:
`
`a.
`
`The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the purpose of
`
`rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at the pretrial
`
`conference, or
`
`b.
`
`The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering party
`
`makes the showing required in paragraph B, below.
`
`3.
`
`Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial, the party
`
`shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of the unlisted witnesses so the
`
`court may consider whether the witnesses shall be permitted to testify at trial. The witnesses will not be
`
`permitted unless:
`
`a. The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the discovery cutoff;
`
`b. The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness;
`
`c.
`
` If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and
`
`d. If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony was provided
`
`to opposing parties.
`
`19
`
`K.
`
`EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES, AND SUMMARIES
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN ATTACHMENTS A-C, MAY BE
`
`ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER
`
`SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local
`
`Rule 281(b)(11).
`
`1.
`
`For a party to use an undisclosed exhibit for any purpose, they must meet the
`
`following criteria:
`
`a. The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the purpose of
`
`rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably anticipated, or
`
`b. The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the proffering party
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`makes the showing required in paragraph 2, below.
`
`2.
`
`Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall promptly inform
`
`the court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits so that the court may consider their
`
`admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received unless the proffering party demonstrates:
`
`a. The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered earlier;
`
`b. The court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their existence; and
`
`c. The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically possible) to the
`
`opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied the proffering party must show that
`
`it has made the exhibits reasonably available for inspection by the opposing parties.
`
`Plaintiff’s Exhibits
`
`1. Plaintiff's Medical Records from 7-15-2014 to 6-13-2016 (Excerpts)
`
`2. Plaintiff's Medical Records from 7-1-2016 to 12-29-2016 (Excerpts)
`
`3. Plaintiff's Medical Records from· 12-29-2016 to 2-8-2017 (Excerpts)
`
`4. Plaintiff's Medical Records from 2-12-2017 to 2-16-2017 (Excerpts)
`
`5. Plaintiff's Medical Records from 2-17-2017 to 8-8-2017 (Excerpts)
`
`6. Statements from Plaintiff's Witnesses.
`
`7. Admissions and Document Request Responses from defendants.
`
`8. Inmate Appeals filed by Plaintiff and responses (Excerpts).
`
`9. Inmate Accommodation Requests (ADA/RAP reports) filed by Plaintiff (Ex. Excerpts)
`
`10. Prison law Office Correspondence and Filings (Excerpts)
`
`11. California DGS (Claims) Filings and Responses (Excerpts).
`
`12. CDCR-0022 Forms and Responses (Excerpts)
`
`
`
`13. Plaintiff's Psychological Records (Excerpts Only)
`
`Defendants’ Exhibits
`
`A. Plaintiff’s medical records from CSP Los Angeles (Lancaster).
`
`B. Plaintiff’s medical records from SATF.
`
`C. Plaintiff’s medical records from Valley State Prison.
`
`D. Plaintiff’s medical records from the California Men’s Colony.
`
`
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`E. Plaintiff’s inmate appeals (CDCR form 602) for medical care and the respective
`
`responses to the appeals.
`
`F. Plaintiff’s CDCR Central File.
`
`The parties must exchange exhibits no later than July 29, 2025. On or before July 29, 2025,
`
`2024, the parties SHALL meet and confer to discuss any disputes related to the above listed exhibits
`
`and to pre-mark and examine each other’s exhibits. Any exhibits not previously disclosed in discovery
`
`SHALL be provided via e-mail or overnight delivery so that it is received by the above exhibit
`
`exchange deadline.
`
`1.
`
`At the exhibit conference, the parties will determine whether there are objections to the
`
`admission of each of the exhibits and will prepare separate indexes; one listing joint exhibits, one
`
`listing Plaintiff’s exhibits and one listing Defendant’s exhibits. In advance of the conference, the parties
`
`must have a complete set of their proposed exhibits in order to be able to fully discuss whether
`
`evidentiary objections exist. Thus, any exhibit not previously provided in discovery SHALL be
`
`provided at least five court days in advance of the exhibit conference.
`
`2.
`
`At the conference, the parties shall identify any duplicate exhibits, i.e., any document
`
`which both sides desire to introduce into evidence. These exhibits SHALL be marked as a joint exhibit
`
`and numbered as directed above. Joint exhibits SHALL be admitted into without further foundation.
`
`All joint exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers preceded by the designation “JT” (e.g. JT/1,
`
`JT/2, etc.). Plaintiff’s exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 1 by the designation
`
`PX (e.g. PX1, PX2, etc.). Defendant’s exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 501
`
`preceded by the designation DX (e.g. DX501, DX502, etc.). The parties SHALL number each page of
`
`any exhibit exceeding one page in length (e.g. PX1-1, PX1-2, PX1-3, etc.).
`
`If originals of exhibits are unavailable, the parties may substitute legible copies. If any
`
`document is offered that is not fully legible, the Court may exclude it from evidence.
`
`Each joint exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the
`
`exhibits. The index shall consist of a column for the exhibit number, one for a description of the exhibit
`
`and one column entitled “Admitted in Evidence” (as shown in the example below).
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`INDEX OF JOINT EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT#
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`ADMITTED
`IN EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`As to any exhibit which is not a joint exhibit but to which there is no objection to its
`
`introduction, the exhibit will likewise be appropriately marked, i.e., as PX1, or as DX501 and will be
`
`indexed as such on the index of the offering party. Such exhibits will be admitted upon introduction
`
`and motion of the party, without further foundation.
`
`4.
`
`Each exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the
`
`exhibits. Each index shall consist of the exhibit number, the description of the exhibit and the three
`
`columns as shown in the example below.
`
`INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT# DESCRIPTION ADMITTED
` IN
`EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OBJECTION
`FOUNDATION
`
`OBJECTION
`OTHER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On the index, as to exhibits to which the only objection is a lack of foundation, the
`
`parties will place a mark under the column heading entitled “Objection Foundation.”
`
`6.
`
`On the index, as to exhibits to which there are objections to admissibility that are not
`
`based solely on a lack of foundation, the parties will place a mark under the column heading entitled
`
`“Other Objections.”
`
`7.
`
`As to each exhibit which is not objected to in the index, it shall be marked and received
`
`into evidence and will require no further foundation.
`
`After the exhibit conference, Plaintiff and counsel for the defendants SHALL develop four
`
`complete, legible sets of exhibits. The parties SHALL deliver three sets of their exhibit binders to the
`
`Courtroom Clerk and provide one set to their opponent, no later than 4:00 p.m., on August 21, 2025.
`
`The parties SHALL determine which of them will also provide three sets of the joint exhibits to the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`Courtroom Clerk.3
`
`7.
`
`The Parties SHALL number each page of any exhibit exceeding one page in length.
`
`L.
`
`POST-TRIAL EXHIBIT RETENTION
`
`
`
`Counsel for the Defense SHALL retrieve the original exhibits from the courtroom deputy
`
`following the verdict in the case and SHALL retain possession of and keep safe all exhibits until final
`
`judgment and all appeals are exhausted.
`
`M.
`
`DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS
`
`The following is a list of discovery documents – portions of depositions, answers to
`
`interrogatories, and responses to requests for admissions – that the parties expect to offer at trial.
`
`NO DISCOVERY DOCUMENT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE
`
`ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER
`
`SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local
`
`Rule 281(b)(12).
`
`Plaintiff’s Documents
`
`All the discovery documents provided during the discovery process at trial, from each and every
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`defendant.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Defendants’ Documents
`
`None, except Plaintiff’s deposition testimony may be offered for impeachment purposes.
`
`19
`
`N.
`
`FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`After the pretrial conference held July 15, 2024, Defendants were permitted to conduct limited
`
`additional discovery. (Doc. 97.) The deadline for doing so was April 21, 2025. To the extent the parties
`
`have identified additional exhibits or witnesses because of additional or new discovery, the parties may
`
`inform the court of that additional information in their objections.
`
`24
`
`O.
`
`STIPULATIONS
`
`25
`
`
`
`Defendants do not believe any stipulations would be beneficial for trial.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`3 In a case where an incarcerated plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Defense shall prepare and provide the binders to the
`Court unless the Court orders otherwise. In addition, for ease of reference during trial, the Court prefers that the parties
`distinguish between the various sets of exhibits (joint, Plaintiff, Defense) by using differently colored binders.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`Plaintiff believes that stipulations could reduce the amount of information that the jury needs to
`
`consider making the deliberation process quicker as well as the trial itself. Stipulations for example as
`
`to the injury, the treatment, surgery, after-care, etc. are some examples that may benefit the trial.
`
`P.
`
`AMENDMENTS/ DISMISSALS
`
`
`
`Defendants do not anticipate any amendments of pleadings.
`
`Defendants request Plaintiff dismiss Dr. Ugwueze because she was not one of Plaintiff’s
`
`treating physicians and her only connection to this case involves her approving one of Plaintiff’s 602
`
`requests for additional care.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of Ugwueze as a defendant because he was the cornerstone of
`
`plaintiff’s care, dealt with plaintiff’s contacts outside of prison, approved medications that plaintiff
`
`was allergic to, and battered plaintiff in front of NP Anthony Hales.
`
`12
`
`Q.
`
`SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
`
`13
`
`
`
`Defendants indicate settlement was unsuccessful at an early settlement conference and that
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Plaintiff’s demand was much higher than they were willing to pay to resolve the matter. Plaintiff
`
`indicates her willingness to settle but seems to agree that the amount the defense previously offered is
`
`insufficient.
`
`17
`
`R.
`
`AGREED STATEMENT
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Defendants do not believe the parties could agree to any agreed statement.
`
`Plaintiff believes that an agreed upon statement could be issued, but she does not propose one.
`
`20
`
`S.
`
`SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Defendants indicate the three-to-four-day trial estimate is too short to warrant a separate trial.
`
`Plaintiff believes that a separate trial of issues would benefit the jury significantly in that the
`
`medical issues are complex and the evidence overwhelming. The court disagrees. The information
`
`shared thus far with the court does not demonstrate any true complexity and the amount of evidence
`
`appears fairly minimal.
`
`26
`
`T.
`
`APPOINTMENT OF IMPARTIAL EXPERTS
`
`27
`
`
`
`Plaintiff requests an appointed medical specialist to testify as to the medical records and
`
`28
`
`
`
`procedures as well as the standard of care. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that appointment of an
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 100 Filed 04/22/25 Page 15 of 19
`
`
`expert is needed at this time. However, she may file a formal motion seeking the appointment of an
`
`impartial expert within the deadlines set forth above for motions in limine. In the meanwhile, Plaintiff
`
`is advised of the standards for appointment of an expert.
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 706 allows a court to appoint an expert witness on the motion of a
`
`party. Fed. R. Evid. 706(a). The Court may appoint an expert witness when it will assist the trier of
`
`fact to decide a fact at issue or understand evidence that is scientific, technical, or requires specialized
`
`knowledge. Arellano Jr. v. Hodge, 2017 WL 2692875, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2017) (citations and
`
`quotations omitted). “Expert witnesses should not be appointed where they are not necessary or
`
`significantly useful for the trier of fact to comprehend a material issue in a case.” Id. (citing Gorton v.
`
`Todd, 793 F.Supp.2d 1171, 1181 (E.D. Cal. 2011)). “[E]pert witnesses should not be appointed to
`
`serve as an advocate for a party.” Id. (citations omitted). Finally, “Rule 706 is not a means to avoid the
`
`in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and its prohibition against using public funds to pay the
`
`expenses of witnesses in a § 1983 prisoner rights action.” Id. (citing Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480
`
`(9th Cir. 1993)).
`
`For plaintiff to prevail on her Eighth Amendment claim, she must demonstrate that defendants
`
`acted with deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. Arellano, at *1 (quoting Estelle v.
`
`Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1983)). The issue in a deliberate medical indifference claim “does not
`
`demand that the jury consider complex ques