The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DANIEL JAMES, No. 2:18-cv-00180-DAD-SCR
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. TENTATIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 On February 10, 2025, the court conducted a final pretrial conference in this case.
18 Plaintiff appeared at the hearing in pro per and attorney Jonathan B. Paul appeared as counsel for
19 defendants. Having considered the parties’ pretrial statements and the views of the parties as
20 expressed at the conference, the court issues this tentative pretrial order.
21 Plaintiff Daniel James brings this civil rights action against defendants Sacramento
22 County, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, McMahon, Lee, E. Meier, C. Robinson, Pitto,
23 Vlasak, P. Rivera, Scott R. Jones, Ramos Quintanilla, Gleason, Parker, Brown, and Williams,
24 asserting claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (TAC)
25 alleges he was repeatedly falsely arrested, subjected to excessive use of force, denied medical
26 attention, had his blood taken without his consent, and was denied access to the courts.
27 /////
28 /////
1 I. JURISDICTION/VENUE
2 Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction is not contested.
3 Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Venue is not contested.
4 II. JURY
5 Both parties have demanded a jury trial. The jury will consist of eight jurors.
6 III. UNDISPUTED FACTS1
7 1. At all relevant times, Deputy Lee, Deputy Robinson, Deputy McMahon, Deputy
8 Pitto, Deputy Vlasak, Deputy Ramos-Quintanilla, Deputy Gleason, Deputy Brown, Deputy
9 Parker, and Deputy Williams were employed by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department as
10 deputy sheriffs within the County of Sacramento.
11 2. On August 15, 2016, Monica Meija obtained a temporary restraining order against
12 plaintiff Daniel James in Sacramento County Superior Court Case No.: 16DV02252 which
13 restrained the plaintiff from being within 100 yards of Ms. Meija or her residence until the
14 hearing on September 2, 2016.
15 3. On September 2, 2016, the Sacramento County Superior Court renewed the
16 temporary restraining order against Daniel James until September 23, 2016.
17 4. In the early morning hours of September 7, 2016, plaintiff was arrested by
18 California Highway Patrol Officer M. Riffie and booked into the Sacramento County Main Jail on
19 charges of violating California Vehicle Code § 14601.2(A) Driving When Privilege to Drive Was
20 Suspended/Revoked for DUI/Drugs and California Vehicle Code § 23152(E) Driving a Vehicle
21 While Under the Influence of Any Drug.
22 5. On September 23, 2016, Monica Meija obtained a domestic violence restraining
23 order against plaintiff in Sacramento County Superior Court Case No.: 16DV02252 which
24 /////
25 1 Defendants are prepared to agree to the following as undisputed facts, though defendants are
unaware of plaintiff’s position on whether they are undisputed. As discussed in the pretrial
26
conference, plaintiff, Mr. James, is instructed to identify which, if any, of the proposed
27 undisputed facts he agrees are undisputed in his objections to this tentative pretrial order. Any
explanations or argument regarding why any facts are disputed will not be considered by the
28 court.
1 Prohibited him from being within 100 yards of her or her residence located at 4407 Oakhollow
2 Drive, Apt. #40, in Sacramento, California and was valid for three years.
3 6. On February 10, 2017, plaintiff was arrested at Monica Meija’s residence by
4 Deputies Clinton Robinson and Eric Meier and charged with violation of California Penal Code §
5 273.6 – Violation of Protection Order.
6 7. On March 22, 2017, plaintiff was arrested at Monica Meija’s residence by
7 Deputies J. Prue and Joseph McMahon and charged with violation of Penal Code § 273.6 –
8 Violation of a Protection Order.
9 8. On March 6, 2018, plaintiff was arrested within the presence of Monica Meija by
10 Deputies Casey Pitto and Patrick Vlasak and charged with violation of Penal Code § 273.6 –
11 Violation of a Protection Order. Said deputies also arrested Monica Meija and she was charged
12 with violation of Penal Code § 273.5 – Infliction of Corporal Injury to Spouse/Cohabitant and
13 Penal Code § 245(A)(1) Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
14 9. On April 28, 2019, plaintiff was arrested by Deputies Austin Brown, Jeffrey
15 Williams, Heber Ramos-Quintanilla and Cayman Gleason and charged with violations of Penal
16 Code § 273.5 – Infliction of Corporal Injury to Spouse or Cohabitant and Penal Code § 273.6(A)
17 – Violation of Court Order to Prevent Domestic Violence.
18 10. During plaintiff’s arrests on February 10, 2017, March 22, 2017, March 6, 2018,
19 and April 28, 2019, he was in violation of the Domestic Violence Restraining Order issued by the
20 Sacramento County Superior Court in Case No.: 16DV02252.
21 11. Plaintiff has no economic damage as a result of his encounters with law
22 enforcement on September 7, 2016, February 10, 2017, February 17, 2017, March 22, 2017,
23 March 6, 2018, and April 28, 2019.
24 12. Plaintiff has not sought or received any treatment for the physical injuries that he
25 attributes to the defendants except through health care practitioners provided by and/or paid for
26 by the County of Sacramento.
27 /////
28 /////
1 13. There are no facts to support plaintiff’s claim against former Sheriff Scott Jones
2 who is sued solely in his individual capacity as he was neither involved in the plaintiff’s arrests
3 nor did he directly supervise any of the deputies involved in the arrests of the plaintiff.
4 IV. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES2
5 1. The validity of the restraining order at the time of plaintiff’s arrests by Sheriff’s
6 Deputies.3
7 2. The amount of force and reasonableness of the force, if any, used by Deputy David
8 Lee on September 7, 2016, while plaintiff was being processed following his arrest by the
9 California Highway Patrol.
10 3. The amount of force and reasonableness of the force, if any, used by Deputies
11 Clifton Robinson and Eric Meier during plaintiff’s arrest of February 10, 2017.
12 4. The amount of force and reasonableness of the force, if any, used by Deputy
13 Joseph McMahon during plaintiff’s arrest of March 22, 2017.
14 5. Whether plaintiff had a serious medical need at the time of his arrest by Deputies
15 Casey Pitto and Patrick Vlasak on March 6, 2018.
16 6. Whether Deputies Casey Pitto and Patrick Vlasak delayed plaintiff’s medical care
17 putting him at substantial risk of suffering serious harm.
18 7. Whether Deputies Casey Pitto and Patrick Vlasak took reasonable measures to
19 abate or reduce the risk of serious harm to plaintiff.
20 8. Whether Deputies Casey Pitto and Patrick Vlasak’s conduct after plaintiff’s arrest
21 was objectively reasonable.
22
2 Plaintiff James lists long paragraphs of argument and alleged facts in his amended pretrial
23 statement, (Doc. No. 100 at 2–7), which the court will not entertain. Plaintiff has not provided
the court with any disputed factual issues, which means: “A plain, concise statement of each fact
24 (and any related essential facts) that the party claims or concedes to be in dispute.” L.R. 281(b).
A disputed fact should not include argument. Rather, each fact should be discrete, not a
25
paragraph of many sentences. Typically, each listed disputed fact is one sentence. If plaintiff
wishes to add disputed issues of fact in his objections to the pretrial order, he may do so, but,
26
again, the court will not include them in its Final Pretrial Order unless he follows these directives.
27
3 The court observes that any arguments challenging the validity of the restraining orders would
28 not appear to be relevant to any issue to be resolved at trial.
1 9. The amount of force and reasonableness of the force, if any, used by Deputy Heber
2 Ramos-Quintanilla on April 28, 2019.
3 10. Whether plaintiff had a serious medical need at the time of his arrest by Deputies
4 Austin Brown, Jeffrey Williams, Heber Ramos-Quintanilla and Cayman Gleason on April 28,
5 2019.
6 11. Whether Deputy Heber Ramos-Quintanilla delayed plaintiff’s medical care,
7 putting him at substantial risk of suffering serious harm.
8 12. Whether Deputy Heber Ramos-Quintanilla took reasonable measures to abate or
9 reduce the risk of serious harm to plaintiff.
10 13. Whether Deputy Heber Ramos-Quintanilla’s conduct after plaintiff’s arrest was
11 objectively reasonable.
12 14. Whether the individual deputy defendants’ use of force during the aforementioned
13 arrests exacerbated plaintiff’s pre-existing injuries.
14 15. Whether the unidentified main jail sheriff deputies unjustifiably refused to
15 physically transport the plaintiff to court on February 10, 2017 and February 17, 2017.
16 V. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES/MOTIONS IN LIMINE
17 The parties have not yet filed motions in limine. The court does not encourage the filing
18 of motions in limine unless they are addressed to issues that can realistically be resolved by the
19 court prior to trial and without reference to the other evidence which will be introduced by the
20 parties at trial. The parties anticipate filing the motions in limine listed below. Any motions in
21 limine counsel elects to file shall be filed no later than 21 days before trial. Opposition shall be
22 filed no later than 14 days before trial and any replies shall be filed no later than 10 days before
23 trial. Upon receipt of any opposition briefs, the court will notify the parties if it will hear
24 argument on any motions in limine prior to the first day of trial.
25 Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
26 None listed.
27 /////
28 /////
1 Defendants’ Motions in Limine
2 1. Various motions in limine pertaining to the evidence to be presented by plaintiff
3 once plaintiff identifies the exhibits and witnesses he intends to utilize.4
4 VI. SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION5
5 VII. RELIEF SOUGHT
6 1. Plaintiff seeks civil penalties of $75,000.00.
7 2. Plaintiff seeks compensation for general damages for pain and suffering,
8 aggravations, stress and loss of enjoyment of life in the sum of $250,000.00.
9 3. Plaintiff seeks a restraining order or injunction against the Sacramento County
10 Sheriff’s Office to restrain them from continuing to harass the plaintiff while he is driving.
11 4. Plaintiff seeks reasonable attorney’s fees as allowed by law.
12 5. Plaintiff seeks the value of his 1995 Chevrolet Silverado worth $12,000.00 that he
13 had owned for 20 years.
14 6. Plaintiff seeks likely loss of 2012 Chevrolet Camaro as a result of him not being
15 able to attend the hearing on February 10, 2017, to assert his ownership interests, worth
16 $30,000.00.
17 7. Plaintiff seeks costs of future medical care and related surgeries to correct the torn
18 shoulder tendons.
19 8. Plaintiff seeks costs.
20 9. Plaintiff seeks such other and further relief as the court may deem just and
21 appropriate.
22 /////
23
4 As discussed at the pretrial conference, in their objections to this order, defendants are
24 instructed to list their anticipated evidentiary MILs more specifically to the extent possible based
on the information included in plaintiff’s amended pretrial statement.
25
5 In defendants’ amended pretrial statement, they included a section on special factual
26
information for tort actions for personal injury. Pursuant to Local Rule 281(b)(6), and as
27 discussed in the pretrial conference, the parties are instructed to list those facts in the appropriate
sections for undisputed facts or disputed factual issues above and make that change in their
28 objections to this order.
1 10. Plaintiff seeks exemplary and punitive damages against the individual officers in
2 an amount to be determined according to proof.
3 VIII. POINTS OF LAW6
4 The claims and defenses asserted in this action arise under federal law. All of plaintiff’s
5 claims are brought against defendants Sacramento County, Sacramento County Sheriff’s
6 Department, McMahon, Lee, E. Meier, C. Robinson, Pitto, Vlasak, P. Rivera, Scott R. Jones,
7 Ramos Quintanilla, Gleason, Parker, Brown, and Williams.
8 1. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim brought under 42
9 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure based upon false arrest in violation of the
10 Fourth Amendment.
11 2. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim brought under 42
12 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
13 3. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim brought under 42
14 U.S.C. § 1983 for unreasonable searches of persons in violation of the Fourth
15 Amendment.
16 4. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim brought under 42
17 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of
18 the Fourteenth Amendment.
19 5. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim for denial of access
20 to the courts.
21 6. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim for a Monell
22 violation.
23 7. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an assault claim.
24
6 As discussed in the pretrial conference, defendants are instructed to specify all affirmative
25
defenses they intend to assert at trial in the points of law section and any affirmative defenses
they are abandoning in the abandoned issues section and to make those changes in their
26
objections to this order. Plaintiff is instructed to specify the claims he is pursuing at trial and any
27 claims he is abandoning and make those changes in his objections to this order. Any causes of
action or affirmative defenses not explicitly listed in the Final Pretrial Order under points of law
28 at the time it becomes final are dismissed and deemed waived.
1 8. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a battery claim.
2 9. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a false imprisonment claim.
3 10. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a negligence claim.
4 11. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an intentional infliction of
5 emotional distress claim.
6 12. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense
7 asserting failure to mitigate damages.
8 Trial briefs addressing the points of law implicated by these remaining claims shall be
9 filed with this court no later than 7 days before trial in accordance with Local Rule 285.
10 ANY CAUSES OF ACTION OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOT EXPLICITLY
11 ASSERTED IN THE PRETRIAL ORDER UNDER POINTS OF LAW AT THE TIME IT
12 BECOMES FINAL ARE DISMISSED, AND DEEMED WAIVED.
13 IX. ABANDONED ISSUES
14 1. Defendants abandon their fourteenth affirmative defense alleging that the
15 plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
16 (1994).
17 X. WITNESSES
18 Plaintiff’s witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment A. Defendants’ witnesses shall
19 be those listed in Attachment B. Each party may call any witnesses designated by the other.
20 A. The court does not allow undisclosed witnesses to be called for any purpose,
21 including impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:
22 (1) The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the
23 purpose of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at
24 the pretrial conference, or
25 (2) The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering
26 party makes the showing required in paragraph B, below.
27 B. Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial,
28 the party shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of
1 the unlisted witnesses by filing a notice on the docket so the court may consider
2 whether the witnesses shall be permitted to testify at trial. The witnesses will not
3 be permitted unless:
4 (1) The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the
5 discovery cutoff;
6 (2) The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of
7 the witness;
8 (3) If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and
9 (4) If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony
10 was provided to opposing parties.
11 XI. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES, AND SUMMARIES
12 Plaintiff’s exhibits are listed in Attachment C.7 Defendants’ exhibits are listed in
13 Attachment D.8 No exhibit shall be marked with or entered into evidence under multiple exhibit
14 numbers, and the parties are hereby directed to meet and confer for the purpose of designating
15 joint exhibits and to provide a list of joint exhibits. All exhibits must be pre-marked as discussed
16 below. At trial, joint exhibits shall be identified as JX and listed numerically, e.g., JX-1, JX-2.
17 Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be listed numerically, and defendants’ exhibits shall be listed
18 alphabetically.
19 The parties must prepare three (3) separate exhibit binders for use by the court at trial,
20 with a side tab identifying each exhibit in accordance with the specifications above. Each binder
21 shall have an identification label on the front and spine. The parties must exchange exhibits no
22 later than 28 days before trial. Any objections to exhibits shall be filed no later than 14 days
23
7 As discussed in the pretrial conference, in his objections to this order plaintiff must identify
24 each exhibit with a brief description (date, author, title, number of pages, bates stamp (if
available)) and cannot include extraneous argument or narratives.
25
8 Defendants have indicated the intent to use plaintiff’s medical records subpoenaed from Kaiser
26
Permanente and those produced by plaintiff in response to discovery. As discussed at the pretrial
27 conference, defendants are instructed to add any such documents defendants intend to use, even
for impeachment purposes, as specifically described exhibits and make that change in their
28 objections to this tentative pretrial order.
1 before trial. The final exhibit binders shall be delivered to the court by the Thursday before
2 the trial date. In making any objection, the party is to set forth the grounds for the objection. As
3 to each exhibit which is not objected to, no further foundation will be required for it to be
4 received into evidence, if offered.
5 The court does not allow the use of undisclosed exhibits for any purpose, including
6 impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:
7 A. The court will not admit exhibits other than those identified on the exhibit lists
8 referenced above unless:
9 (1) The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the
10 purpose of rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably
11 anticipated, or
12 (2) The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the
13 proffering party makes the showing required in paragraph B, below.
14 B. Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall promptly
15 inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits by filing a
16 notice on the docket so that the court may consider their admissibility at trial. The
17 exhibits will not be received unless the proffering party demonstrates:
18 (1) The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered earlier;
19 (2) The court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their
20 existence;
21 (3) The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically
22 possible) to the opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied the
23 proffering party must show that it has made the exhibits reasonably
24 available for inspection by the opposing parties.
25 XII. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS
26 The parties must lodge the sealed original copy of any deposition transcript to be used at
27 trial with the Clerk of the Court no later than 14 days before trial.
28 /////
1 Plaintiff has indicated the intent to use the following discovery documents at trial.9
2 1. None.
3 Defendants have indicated the intent to use the following discovery documents at trial.10
4 1. Plaintiff’s depositions of September 22, 2023 and April 19, 2024.
5 2. Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories.
6 3. Plaintiff’s admissions.
7 XIII. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS
8 On February 6, 2025, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a ruling granting in part
9 plaintiff’s motion to compel. (Doc. No. 101.) Pursuant to that order, defendants are required to
10 diligently search for the “MVARS” video and “Toxicology Report” from plaintiff’s 2016 arrest
11 and prosecution and to produce largely unredacted versions of documents that are currently
12 redacted. (Id. at 7–8.) In all other respects discovery and law motion are closed under the
13 governing scheduling order
14 XIV. STIPULATIONS
15 None.
16 XV. AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS
17 Defendants submit that “[i]n order for this case to be at issue, defendant P. Rivera would
18 need to be dismissed from the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m)” as she “has not appeared”
19 nor been “served with summons and complaint.” (Doc. No. 99 at 2.) According to the
20 allegations of plaintiff’s operative complaint, defendant P. Rivera is a phlebotomist who took
21 plaintiff’s blood without his consent. At the final pretrial conference, defendants argued P.
22 Rivera is not an employee of the County of Sacramento.
23 Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause in his objections to this order why P. Rivera
24 should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) due to plaintiff’s failure
25 9 As discussed at the pretrial conference, plaintiff is instructed to list any discovery documents he
intends to use at trial and make that change in his objections to this order.
26
27 10 As discussed at the pretrial conference, defendants are instructed to provide more specific
information identifying “responses to interrogatories” and “plaintiff’s admissions” in their
28 objections to this order.
1 to serve process within the time provided.
2 XVI. SETTLEMENT
3 Defendants report in their amended pretrial statement that defendants made a settlement
4 offer to resolve the case, and plaintiff “rejected said offer claiming it was insulting and indicating
5 that he wants his day in court.” (Doc. No. 99 at 20.) The parties have not yet participated in a
6 court-ordered settlement conference.
7 Accordingly, the parties are ordered to immediately contact the chambers of the assigned
8 magistrate judge for the setting of a settlement conference prior to the trial of this case.
9 Depending on the assigned magistrate judge’s settlement conference procedures, the assigned
10 magistrate judge may hold the settlement conference or may arrange for a different magistrate
11 judge to hold the settlement conference. The parties are instructed that a settlement conference
12 date must be set within twenty-one days of the date of issuance of this tentative pretrial order.
13 XVII. JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE11
14 This case arises from a dispute between plaintiff Daniel James and defendants Sacramento
15 County, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, Sacramento County employee P. Rivera, and
16 Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department employees McMahon, Lee, E. Meier, C. Robinson,
17 Pitto, Vlasak, Scott R. Jones, Ramos Quintanilla, Gleason, Parker, Brown, and Williams.
18 Plaintiff alleges that these defendants repeatedly falsely arrested him, subjected him to excessive
19 force, denied him medical attention, denied him access to the courts, and on one occasion took his
20 blood without his consent.
21 XVIII. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES
22 In defendants’ amended pretrial statement, they state that they believe that bifurcation of
23 the Monell claim would be helpful as plaintiff must first establish a constitutional violation on the
24 part of the deputy defendants. The court declines to bifurcate the Monell claim at this time.
25 However, in keeping with its standard practice in § 1983 cases like this one, the court will
26
11 The parties have not provided an agreed-upon neutral statement of the case. Because the
27 parties do not seem able to cooperate, the court has crafted a potential joint statement of the case.
The parties are to provide a joint statement of the case, or the court will use the statement the
28 court crafted.
1 bifurcate the punitive damages claim as follows. The court will submit the question of
2 defendants’ liability, including potential liability for punitive damages, to the jury in the first
3 phase of trial. If the jury makes the requisite finding that punitive damages are available, then the
4 trial will proceed to a second phase on the question of the amount of punitive damages, if any, to
5 be awarded.
6 XIX. IMPARTIAL EXPERTS/LIMITATION OF EXPERTS
7 None.
8 XX. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
9 Plaintiff will seek attorneys’ fees and costs if he prevails.
10 XXI. TRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REDACTION OF TRIAL EXHIBITS
11 None.
12 XXII. MISCELLANEOUS
13 In their amended pretrial statement, defendants request that trial briefs be provided to the
14 court pursuant to Local Rule 285, that all in limine motions be provided at the same time as the
15 trial briefs, and that jury voir dire and jury questionnaires be provided to the court three days prior
16 to trial. The court denies this request.
17 XXIII. ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL/TRIAL DATE
18 Jury trial is scheduled for March 25, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before the
19 Honorable Dale A. Drozd. Trial is anticipated to last 4 court days. The parties are directed to
20 Judge Drozd’s Standing Order in Civil Actions, available on his webpage on the court’s website.
21 XXIV. PROPOSED JURY VOIR DIRE AND PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
22 The parties shall file any proposed jury voir dire 7 days before trial. Each party will be
23 limited to fifteen minutes of supplemental jury voir dire.
24 The court directs counsel to meet and confer in an attempt to generate a joint set of jury
25 instructions and verdicts. The parties shall file any such joint set of instructions 14 days before
26 trial, identified as “Joint Jury Instructions and Verdicts.” To the extent the parties are unable to
27 agree on all or some instructions and verdicts, their respective proposed instructions are due 14
28 days before trial.
1 The parties shall e-mail a copy of all proposed jury instructions and verdicts, whether
2 | agreed or disputed, as a Word document to dadorders @caed.uscourts.gov no later than 14 days
3 | before trial; all blanks in form instructions should be completed and all brackets removed.
4 Objections to proposed jury instructions must be filed 7 days before trial; each objection
5 | shall identify the challenged instruction and shall provide a concise explanation of the basis for
6 | the objection along with citation of authority. When applicable, the objecting party shall submit
7 | an alternative proposed instruction on the issue or identify which of his or her own proposed
8 | instructions covers the subject.
9 | XXV. TRIAL BRIEFS
10 As noted above, trial briefs are due 7 days before trial.
11 | XXVI. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER
12 Each party is granted 10 days from the date of entry of this order to file objections to
13 | the same. Each party is also granted 7 days thereafter to respond to the other party’s objections.
14 | Ifno objections are filed, the order will become final without further order of this court.
15 The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
16 | Procedure and Local Rule 283 of this court, this order shall control the subsequent course of this
17 | action and shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice.
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ February 11, 2025 Dal A. 2d, Arye
20 DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
1 ATTACHMENT A
2 Plaintiff’s Witness List
3 1. Kelly Statum at 4141 Palm Ave. Unit #44.
4 2. Deborah Bouzoumita who used to live at 4407 Oakhollow Dr. Apt. 29.
5 3. Bill Yourk who used to live at 4407 Oakhollow Dr. Apt. 25.
6 4. Daniel Little.
7 5. Dawn Jackson.
8 6. Expert witness from Kaiser Permanente.12
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
12 As discussed at the pretrial conference, plaintiff is instructed to list this witness’s name in his
28 objections to this order.
1 ATTACHMENT B
2 Defendants’ Witness List
3 1. Sacramento Sheriff’s Department (SSD) Deputy David Lee, Badge No.: 687, c/o Rivera
4 Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
5 2. SSD Deputy Eric Meier, Badge No. 373, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold Meadow
6 Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
7 3. SSD Deputy Clifton Robinson, Badge No.: 305, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold
8 Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
9 4. SSD Deputy Joseph McMahon, Badge No.: 200, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold
10 Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
11 5. SSD Deputy Jacob Prue, Badge No.: 394, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold
12 Meadow way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
13 6. SSD Deputy Casey Pitto, Badge No.: 825, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold
14 Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
15 7. SSD Deputy Patrick Vlasak, Badge No.: 1452, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold
16 Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
17 8. SSD Sergeant Todd Gooler, Badge No.: 4, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold
18 Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
19 9. SSD Deputy Heber Ramos-Quintanilla, Badge No.: 704, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP,
20 2355 Gold Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
21 10. SSD Deputy Cayman Gleason, Badge No. 968, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold
22 Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
23 11. SSD Deputy Austin Brown, Badge No.: 19, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold
24 Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
25 12. SSD Deputy Parker, Badge No.: 913, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold Meadow
26 Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
27 13. SSD Deputy Jeffrey Williams, Badge No.: 64, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold
28 Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
1 14. SSD Deputy S.M. Daniels, Badge No.: 1493, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold
2 Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
3 15. SSD Records Officer Swartz, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold Meadow Way, Ste.
4 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
5 16. Carl Hank, RN, Sacramento County Adult Correctional Health, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul
6 LLP, 2355 Gold Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
7 17. Steven Friend, M.D., Sacramento County Adult Correctional Health, c/o Rivera Hewitt
8 Paul LLP, 2355 Gold Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
9 18. Sharon Clark (formerly Muthinja), RN, Sacramento County Adult Correctional Health,
10 c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
11 19. Monica Meija, 4141 Palm Avenue, #160, Sacramento, CA 95842.
12 20. Deborah Lee Taylor, 4141 Palm Avenue #39, Sacramento, CA 95842.
13 21. John Paul Griffin, 4141 Palm Avenue #17, Sacramento, CA 95842.
14 22. M. Riffie, Badge No.: 18115, California Highway Patrol, 5109 Tyler Street, Sacramento,
15 CA 95841.
16 23. Sacramento County Deputy District Attorney Danny Lee, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP,
17 2355 Gold Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
18 24. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Person Most Knowledgeable regarding the use
19 of force policy and training on the use of force policy, c/o Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355
20 Gold Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
21 25. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Person Most Knowledgeable on the policies
22 governing the transportation of incarcerated inmates to outside court appearances, c/o
23 Rivera Hewitt Paul LLP, 2355 Gold Meadow Way, Ste. 170, Gold River, CA 95670.
24
25
26
27
28
1 ATTACHMENT C
2 Plaintiff’s Exhibit List
3 As discussed at the pretrial conference, in his objections to this tentative pretrial order,
4 plaintiff is directed to appropriately revise his exhibit list.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 ATTACHMENT D
2 Defendants’ Exhibit List
3 Exh. Description
4 A Computer Aided Dispatch Event No.: 16-240421, dated August 14, 2016. (3 pages.)
5 B Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order in Meija v. James, Sacramento
6 Superior Court Case No.: 16DV02252, filed August 15, 2016. (11 pages.)
7 C Temporary Restraining Order in Meija v. James, Sacramento Superior Court Case
8 No.: 16DV02252, issued on August 15, 2016. (6 pages.)
9 D Computer Aided Dispatch Event No.: 16-250709, dated August 23, 2016. (1 page –
10 DEF_0001.)
11 E Restraining Order After Hearing in Meija v. James, Sacramento Superior Court
12 Case No.: 16DV02252, filed on September 23, 2016. (7 pages.)
13 F Mugshot Profile Photo of Daniel James taken September 7, 2016. (1 page –
14 DEF_0011.)
15 G Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Release Screening Form signed by Daniel
16 James, dated September 7, 2016. (1 page – DEF_0018.)
17 H Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Custody Log for Daniel James dated
18 September 7, 2016. (1 page – DEF_0015.)
19
I Arrest Report No.: 0907160053 by California Highway Patrol Officer M. Riffie,
20
badge No.: 18115, dated September 7, 2016. (1 page – DEF 0014.)
21
J Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Report No.: 2017-45719, dated February
22
10, 2017. (9 pages – DEF_0027-0035.)
23
K Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Report No.: 2017-93000, dated March 22,
24
2017. (12 pages – DEF_0059-DEF_0070.)
25
L Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Report No.: 2018-0075762, dated March
26
6, 2018. (13 Pages – DEF_0089-DEF_0101.)
27
28
1 M Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Report No.: 2019-0146794, dated April
2
29, 2019. (12 Pages – DEF_0125-DEF_136.)
3
N In Car Camera Video of Plaintiff’s Arrest of April 29, 2019, from SSD Case No.:
4
19-146794. (Approximately 48 minutes – DEF_0195.)
5
O In Car Camera Video of Plaintiff’s Transport from the main jail to the hospital on
6
April 29, 2019, from SSD Case No.: 19-146794. (Approximately 7 minutes –
7
DEF_0196.)
8
P In Car Camera video of Plaintiff’s transport from the hospital to the Main Jail on
9
April 29, 2019, from SSD Case No.: 19-146794. (Approximately 6 minutes –
10
DEF_197.)
11
Q Correctional Health Services Medical Records of Plaintiff for encounter of April 29,
12
2019. (4 page - DEF_0217-0220.)
13
R Correctional Health Services Medical Records of Plaintiff for encounter April 30,
14
2019. (2 pages - DEF_0215-216.)
15
S Correctional Health Services Medical Records of Plaintiff for encounter of February
16
11, 2017. (1 page - DEF_0235.)
17
T Medical Records from Sutter General Hospital for encounters of April 29, 2019 (5
18
pages.)
19
U Medical Records produced by Plaintiff from Sutter General Hospital for an
20
encounter of March 6, 2018 (6 pages.)
21
V Kaiser Medical Records for Encounter of May 1, 2019 (5 pages.)
22
W Kaiser Medical Records for encounter of March 12, 2018 (4 pages.)
23
X Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Assignment History for David Lee. (1
24
page.)
25
Y Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Property and Clothing Record for
26
Plaintiff’s arrest of March 6, 2018 completed by Deputy Pitto. (1 page -
27
DEF_0117.)
28
1 Z Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Property and Clothing Record for
2
Plaintiff’s arrest of April 29, 2019 completed by Deputy Brown. (1 page -
3
DEF_0149.)
4
AA Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department General Order 2/11 – Use of Force (Rev
5
8/17). (6 pages.)
6
BB Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Operations Order 10/04 – Medical Intake
7
Screening (Rev 7/07). (2 pages.)
8
CC Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Operations Order 10/04 – Medical Intake
9
Screening (Rev 6/19). (2 pages.)
10
DD Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department General Order 21/01 – Prisoner Security-
11
Handcuffing (Rev 10/13). (2 pages.)
12
EE Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Operations Order 6/08 – Court Pull
13
Procedures (Rev 1/12). (2 pages.)
14
FF Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department General Order 3/12 – Detentions, Arrests,
15
Search, Seizure, and Immigration Enforcement (New 3/15). (7 pages.)
16
GG Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department General Order 3/12 – Detentions, Arrests,
17
Search, Seizure, and Immigration Enforcement (Rev 3/15). (5 pages.)
18
HH Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Operations Order 07/01 – Domestic
19
Violence (Rev 5/18). (8 pages.)
20
II Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office Toxicology Report for Daniel James,
21
dated September 26, 2016 (2 pages - DEF_0260-0261.)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28