finding an eight-hour time limit to be reasonable in a disability discrimination trial
How later courts described this case
- finding an eight-hour time limit to be reasonable in a disability discrimination trial
- finding court’s time 14 limit reasonable, although it provided significantly less time than parties’ estimated times
- “It is for the parties, and not the court, to make the determination about which 19 witnesses are truly necessary and, in addition, how much of each witness’ testimony is 20 necessary.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 | Gayle W. Brown, No. 2:19-cev-01921-KJM-AC
12 Plaintiff, ORDER
13 v.
Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. et al.,
1S Defendants.
16
17 In preparation for trial, defendants submitted the parties’ joint witness list and estimated
18 | length of witness examinations on June 14, 2022, ECF No. 83. Plaintiff and defendants provide
19 | vastly different estimated lengths of time needed for trial; plaintiff estimates a total of 65 hours of
20 | time is needed while defendants ask for 25 hours. /d. Having reviewed the record and based on
21 | the parties’ information regarding the witnesses and issues to be covered at trial, the court orders
22 | that each side will try its case within a time limit of 17.5 hours, including opening statements and
23 | closing arguments as well as direct and cross examination time, to take place across
24 | approximately seven days of trial. The court will exclude any time spent on voir dire and lengthy
25 | argument regarding objections, as well as recesses, from this limit.
26 District courts may impose reasonable time limits on a trial “to prevent undue delay, waste
27 | of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494,
28 | 1513 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(O) (listing time limits as a proper topic for
1 pretrial conference). “[D]istrict courts should not exercise this discretion as a matter of course …
2 Rather, a district court should impose time limits only when necessary, after making an informed
3 analysis based on a review of the parties’ proposed witness lists and proffered testimony, as well
4 as their estimates of trial time.” Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 66 F.3d 604,
5 610 (3rd Cir. 1995). Here, to avoid wasting time and unnecessary presentation of excess
6 evidence, the court finds that time limits are necessary and reasonable. Plaintiff’s suggested 65
7 hours of trial would be abnormally burdensome on a jury and the court for an individual
8 employment discrimination case. Cf. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.
9 2002) (finding an eight-hour time limit to be reasonable in a disability discrimination trial);
10 Raynor v. G4S Secure Sols. (USA), Inc., 805 F. App’x 170, 178–79 (4th Cir. 2020) (finding 15-
11 hour time limit in a race discrimination trial reasonable). The 35-hour trial length the court
12 imposes here is a reasonable compromise, falling between each side’s estimated time. See
13 Monotype Corp. v. Int’l Typeface Corp. 43 F.3d 443, 451 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding court’s time
14 limit reasonable, although it provided significantly less time than parties’ estimated times).
15 Imposing time limits and then allowing each party to manage its presentation of evidence is
16 preferable to the court’s micromanaging trial by restricting the number of witnesses or the time
17 each witness will be allowed. See Enright v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1072, 1074
18 (N.D. Ind. 1998) (“It is for the parties, and not the court, to make the determination about which
19 witnesses are truly necessary and, in addition, how much of each witness’ testimony is
20 necessary.”).
21 For the reasons reviewed above, the court orders each side will try its case within the
22 reasonable time limit of 17.5 hours, with trial taking place across approximately seven court
23 days.
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25 DATED: June 21, 2022.
26