# Medina

> District Court, E.D. California · November 18, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11223464

## Case

- **Full name:** Wesley Cotton v. Medina, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** November 18, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11223464

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 WESLEY COTTON, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00568 JLT EPG
12 Plaintiff, PRETRIAL ORDER1; ORDER DENYING
MOTION IN LIMINES, MOTION FOR
13 v. SANCTIONS AND OVERRULING FORMAL
OBJECTION
14 MEDINA, et al., (Docs. 176, 177, 178, 179)
15 Defendants. Deadlines:
Motions in Limine Filing: 1/5/2026
Oppositions to Motions in Limine: 1/12/2026
16
Trial Submissions: 1/13/2026
Jury trial: 1/27/2026 at 8:30 a.m., 2-4 days
17
18 On November 17, 2025, the Court conducted a final pretrial conference in this action via
19 Zoom. (See Doc. 134.) Wesley Cotton appeared pro se and David E. Kuchinsky appeared as counsel
20 for Defendant. Having considered the parties’ pretrial statements, (Docs. 172, 173), the Court issues
21 this tentative pretrial order.
22 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
23
24 1 Plaintiff takes exception to the “late filing” of the defendant’s pretrial statement. (Doc. 179) However, the
defense statement was filed on the same day as plaintiff’s statement, September 30, 2025. (See Docs. 172, 173)
25 Thus, the motion (Doc. 179) is DENIED. Moreover, though Plaintiff indicates that if his trial does not proceed
as scheduled, he will view it as “unfair.” At this time, the Court cannot assure him that it will proceed as
26 scheduled. Because criminal cases are required by the Constitution to have priority, and the Court
prioritizes older cases over newer ones, whether this trial will proceed as currently scheduled is unknown
27 and will remain unknown until the date approaches. Unfortunately, there is no constitutional guarantee
that a civil case, such as this one, proceed in any particular timeframe. The only way to assure that the
28 trial will proceed as scheduled is to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction—as this Court has
1 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Doc. 172.) This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims against
2 Corcoran State Prison Sergeant Medina for failure to protect. (Doc. 173.) Generally, this claim alleges
3 that Defendant Medina failed to protect Plaintiff from exposure to oleoresin capsicum (“OC”) on
4 March 19, 2022, at California State Prison in Corcoran, California. (Id.)
5 A. JURISDICTION / VENUE
6 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and § 1343 because
7 Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law. The events that gave rise to this action occurred at the
8 California State Prison in Corcoran, California. Accordingly, venue is proper in the United States
9 District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
10 B. JURY TRIAL
11 All parties demanded a jury trial in this matter. (Doc. 1, p.1; Doc. 23, p. 7). The jury will
12 consist of eight jurors.
13 C. UNDISPUTED FACTS2
14 I. Plaintiff
15
1. Plaintiff was located at 3B Yard on March 19, 2022.
16
2. Chemical Agents were deployed by staff in an adjacent area, Yard 3C.
17
3. Defendant was assigned to work at 3B Yard on March 19, 2022.
18
II. Defendant
19
1. At all times relevant to this case, Plaintiff was an inmate in the custody of California
20
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and was housed at California
21
State Prison, Corcoran, in Corcoran, California.
22
2. At all times relevant to this case, Defendant Medina was a correctional sergeant
23
employed by CDCR and assigned to Corcoran.
24
3. On March 19, 2022, at approximately 12:00 p.m., an incident occurred at Corcoran on
25
Yard 3C, in which officers deployed multiple chemical agents to stop a fight between
26
27

28 2 The parties submitted separate pretrial statements with their own statement of facts. The following is the
1 multiple third-party inmates.
2 4. At the time of the incident on March 19, 2022, Plaintiff was located at Facility 3B, a
3 separate area of the prison from Yard 3C, and was not involved in the Yard 3C
4 incident.
5 5. On March 19, 2022, Defendant Medina was assigned to work as the B program facility
6
sergeant.
7
6. Defendant Medina was not involved in the incident on Yard 3C on March 19, 2022.
8
D. DISPUTED FACTS
9
I. Plaintiff3
10
1. Medina refused to give aid during the incident on March 19, 2022.
11
2. Plaintiff was exposed and not decontaminated, nor given immediate medical aid.
12
II. Defendant
13
1. Defendant Medina did not have contact with Plaintiff on March 19, 2022.
14
2. Plaintiff was not exposed to OC in an amount that could cause him serious harm.
15
3. Defendant did not cause Plaintiff to be at risk of harm.
16
4. Defendant was not aware of any risk of harm to Plaintiff.
17
5. The nature and extent of any injuries Plaintiff sustained.
18
6. The nature and extent of any damages Plaintiff incurred.
19
E. DISPUTED LEGAL ISSUES
20
None offered.
21
F. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES / MOTIONS IN LIMINE
22
I. Plaintiff
23
1. Plaintiff has filed a motion in limine requesting an order: “(1) authorizing limited
24
demonstrative use of excerpts from peer-reviewed literature at trial; (2) permitting
25
Plaintiff to read into evidence, under FRE 803(18) learned treatise passages during the
26

27
3 Plaintiff did not provide a section in his pre-trial statement for disputed facts. (See Doc. 172). However,
28 several facts Plaintiff provides are disputed by Defendant. As such, the Court placed those specific facts in the
1 examination of any qualified witness; and (3) admitting Rule 1006 summary charts
2 derived from admissible government publications.” (Doc. 169.)
3 2. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Judicial Notice of Government Publications. (Doc.
4 168.) Plaintiff “moves the Court to take judicial notice of the existence and content of
5 the following government publications related to riot-control agents (CN/CS)
6 dispersion, exposure, and downwind hazard planning. These are self-authenticating
7 public records subject to the hearsay exception for public records and proper subjects of
8 judicial notice under FRE 201, 803(8), and 902(5).” (Doc. 168.)
9 3. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Strike Contreras Statements. (Doc. 170.)
10 4. Plaintiff has filed a Request for Judicial Notice of Docketed Orders/Filings and Order
11 Confirming Discovery is Closed. (Doc. 171.)
12 II. Defendant
13 1. Defendant intends to file motions in limine to preclude Plaintiff from testifying,
14 eliciting testimony, or introducing evidence of the following matters: (a) Plaintiff’s own
15 lay opinions regarding causation, diagnosis, or prognosis for any alleged injuries
16 Plaintiff claims are related to Defendant’s purported conduct; (b) any dismissed claims
17 or Defendant; (c) hearsay statements, and documents containing hearsay statements,
18 which Defendant anticipate Plaintiff may seek to introduce based on his previous
19 statements and filings in this case; (d) Defendant’s involvement in other lawsuits or
20 incidents alleging misconduct; (e) offers to compromise; and (f) CDCR’s
21 indemnification of an adverse judgment.
22 2. Defendant also intends to file a motion in limine to permit her to introduce evidence of
23 Plaintiff’s, and any incarcerated witness’s, felony convictions and sentences for
24 impeachment purposes.
25 The purpose of a motion in limine is to establish, in advance of the trial, that certain evidence
26 should not be offered at trial. “Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in
27 limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court’s inherent authority to manage
28 the course of trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984); Jonasson v. Lutheran Child
1 and Family Services, 115 F. 3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). The Court will grant a motion in limine, and
2 thereby bar use of the evidence in question, only if the moving party establishes that the evidence
3 clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Id. The Court does not encourage the filing of motions
4 in limine unless they are addressed to issues that can realistically be resolved by the Court prior to trial
5 and without reference to the other evidence which will be introduced by the parties at trial.
6 In advance of filing any motion in limine, the parties SHALL meet and confer to
7 determine whether they can resolve any disputes and avoid filing motions in limine. Along with
8 their motions in limine, the parties SHALL file a certification demonstrating they have in good
9 faith met and conferred and attempted to resolve the dispute. Failure to provide the
10 certification may result in the Court refusing to entertain the motion.
11 Any motions in limine must be filed with the Court no later than January 5, 2026. The motion
12 must clearly identify the nature of the evidence that the moving party seeks to prohibit the other side
13 from offering at trial. Any opposition to the motion must be served on the other party and filed with
14 the Court no later than January 12, 2026. Upon receipt of any opposition briefs, the Court will notify
15 the parties if it decides that argument is needed on any motion in limine.
16 G. SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION
17 None offered.
18 H. RELIEF SOUGHT
19 I. Plaintiff
20 Plaintiff seeks compensatory monetary damages in the amount of $2,000,000 and punitive
21 damages. (Doc. 1, p. 6.)
22 II. Defendant
23 Defendant seeks judgment in her favor in this case and costs. (Doc. 173, p.3.)
24 I. ABANDONED ISSUES
25 Defendant has not abandoned any issue. Plaintiff did not provide a statement.
26 J. WITNESSES
27 1. The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including
28 rebuttal and impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS
1 SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A
2 SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST
3 INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(10).
4 I. Plaintiff
5 1. Andrew Price
6 2. Dr. F. Balinos (CDCR)
7 3. Captain Robert Clifton
8 4. Officer Ayala Robles
9 5. Officer D.D. Nora
10 6. Christopher G. Valencia (#T05563)—Corcoran CSP, 3B Facility
11 7. Paul Fielder (#BM1302)—Corcoran CSP, 3B Facility
12 8. Duncan Reynard (#AF0671)—Corcoran CSP, 3B Facility
13 9. Clifford Lewis (#BF0446)—Corcoran CSP, 3B Facility
14 10. Cesario Medina (#BF7636)—Corcoran CSP, 3B Facility
15 II. Defendant
16 1. Plaintiff Wesley Cotton
17 2. Defendant Correction Sergeant S. Medina
18 3. Correctional Sergeant M. Contreras
19 4. Correctional Officer A. Raschke
20 5. Correctional Officer R. Maldonado
21 6. Correctional Officer B. Butler
22 7. Correctional Officer C. Barbosa
23 8. Correctional Lieutenant R. Ozuna
24 9. Correctional Sergeant J. Martinez
25 10. Correctional Officer C. Hernandez
26 11. Correction Officer J. Barajas
27 12. Correctional Officer A. Guerrero
28 13. Correctional Sergeant R. Serna
1 14. Correctional Officer M. Alvarez
2 15. Correctional Officer J. Vargas
3 16. Correctional Officer R. Barrientos
4 17. Dr. F. Balinos
5 18. Dr. C. Herriford
6 19. Registered Nurse A. Cross
7 20. CDCR Custodian of Records for Plaintiff’s central file
8 21. CDCR Custodian of Records for Plaintiff’s medical records4
9 2. The Court does not allow undisclosed witnesses to be called for any purpose,
10 including impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:
11 a. The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the purpose of
12 rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at the pretrial conference, or
13 b. The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering party
14 makes the showing required in paragraph 3, below.
15 3. Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial, the
16 party shall promptly inform the Court and opposing parties of the existence of the unlisted witnesses
17 so the Court may consider whether the witnesses shall be permitted to testify at trial. The witnesses
18 will not be permitted unless:
19 a. The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the discovery
20 cutoff;
21 b. The Court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of the
22 witness;
23 c. If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and
24 d. If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony was
25 provided to opposing parties.
26

27
4 “Although the custodians of records will be available to testify at trial, to avoid undue expense and absent any
28 dispute about the authenticity of the documents to be presented, Defendant requests that this witness be
1 4. Motions to preclude witnesses/sanctions/objections
2 After receiving the defense pretrial statement in which the defense identified the witnesses set
3 forth above, Mr. Cotton filed various motions directed at seeking to exclude them from testifying.
4 (Docs. 176, 177, 178, 179) The rationale for the motions was that the defense failed to list these
5 witnesses on their Rule 26 disclosure and Defendant Medina reported that she knew of no witnesses
6 who “could prove her whereabouts or act as an alibi.” (Doc. 177 at 2) The defendant responds, and it
7 is undisputed, that all of these witnesses were made known to plaintiff through discovery, though the
8 defense failed to update their Rule 26 disclosure.
9 The Court is required to consider the motion according to Rule 37. Rule 37 would require the
10 Court to strike the undisclosed witnesses unless the failure was harmless. Here, it appears that most of
11 these witnesses can speak only to why the tear gas/OC spray was deployed in the yard, rather than
12 whether Medina refused to provide plaintiff medical care. On the other hand, plaintiff received the
13 incident report detailing the acts of the various officers involved in the event, which gave rise to the
14 tear gas/OC spray wafting onto the yard where Plaintiff was taking leisure activity. Thus, the failure to
15 update the Rule 26 disclosure was harmless because plaintiff had the incident report and the yard logs
16 well in advance of the discovery deadline. For these reasons, the motion in limine (Docs. 176), the
17 motion for sanctions (Doc. 177) and the formal objections (Doc. 178) are DENIED.
18 K. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES
19 NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED HEREIN, MAY BE ADMITTED UNLESS
20 THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE
21 MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule
22 281(b)(11).
23 1. For a party to use an undisclosed exhibit for any purpose, they must meet the
24 following criteria:
25 a. The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the purpose of
26 rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably anticipated, or
27 b. The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the proffering party
28 makes the showing required in paragraph 2, below.
1 2. Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall promptly inform
2 the Court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits so that the Court may consider their
3 admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received unless the proffering party demonstrates:
4 a. The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered earlier;
5 b. The Court and opposing parties were promptly informed of their existence; and
6 c. The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically possible) to the
7 opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied the proffering party must show that it
8 has made the exhibits reasonably available for inspection by the opposing parties.
9 Plaintiff’s Exhibits5
10 1. Video Exhibits
11 • Interview of Plaintiff by CDCR Corcoran senior officers on April 19, 2022.
12 • Video footage of the 3C Yard incident and resulting CN gas deployment affecting
13 Plaintiff on 3B Yard from March 19, 2022.
14 2. Documentary Exhibits (150 exhibits)
15 • Medical Records
16 • Sworn Declarations
17 • Staff Use of Force Reports
18 • Facility Logbooks and Assignment Sheets
19 • Admissions/Statements by Sgt. Medina
20 3. New Reference Exhibit (Exhibit #157): Google Satellite Imagery of 3C Yard directly adjacent
21 to 3B Yard,
22 4. Scientific Addendum
23 • Exhibit 158—DOM 32020.8-Basic Training
24 • Exhibit 159—DOM 33030.13-Investigation Timeline
25 • Exhibit 160—DOM 3303.5.3-Supervisor Role
26 • Exhibit 161—DOM 51040.6-Post Orders
27

28 5 Plaintiff’s pretrial statement including attachments is 720 pages, including 700 pages of “documentary
1 • Exhibit 162—DOM 47040.8-Video Preservation
2 • Exhibit 163—DOM 47040.10-Review Protocol
3 • Exhibit 164—DOM 51040.3- Facility Supervisor Role
4 • Exhibit 165—DOM 51040.5- Chain of Command/Finalization of Post Orders
5 • Exhibit 167—CDC Chemical Fact Sheet: Riot Control Agents (CN/CS)
6 • Exhibit 168—NOISH ERSH-DB Emergency Response Card: CN
7 (Chloroacetophenone)
8 • Exhibit 169—CDC CTTL Laboratory Capabilities: Riot Control Agents
9 • Exhibit 170—AEGLS for CS (National Academies)
10 • Exhibit 171—U.S. Army Civil Disturbance/RCA Doctrine
11 • Exhibit 172—Manufacturer Safety Data Sheet (MK-9 OC/OC-CS)
12 • Exhibit 173—Jordt Lab Overview/Publications
13 • Exhibit 174—Peer-Reviewed Review
14 • Exhibit 175—American Thoracic Society Statement
15 • Exhibit 176—Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2010)
16 • Exhibit 177—Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756 (4th Cir. 1996)
17 Defendant’s Exhibits
18 1. Diagrams and photographs of California State Prison, Corcoran, including Yard 3C and Yard
19 3B.
20 2. Video surveillance footage from March 19, 2022.
21 3. Body Worn Camera footage from March 19, 2022.
22 4. Incident Report Log No. 35924.
23 5. Video interview of Plaintiff from April 19, 2022.
24 6. Inmate Grievance Log No. 246844 and responses.
25 7. Expert report of Sgt. Contreras
26 8. Abstracts of Judgment for Plaintiff dated 8/1/2011 and 9/29/2011.
27 9. Excerpts of Plaintiff’s central file (SOMS and ERMS), including, but not limited to,
28 movements and bed assignments histories, classification committee review documentation,
1 disciplinary history, rules violation reports, inmate request forms, and informational chronos.
2 10.Excerpts of Plaintiff’s medical records.
3 11.Portions of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, records of his prior statements in Court filings,
4 inmate grievance records, inmate disciplinary records, and discovery responses in this case
5 should they become relevant and material during the course of trial.
6 The parties must exchange exhibits no later than December 30, 2025. On or before January
7 5, 2026 the parties SHALL meet and confer to discuss any disputes related to the above listed exhibits
8 and to pre-mark and examine each other’s exhibits. Any exhibits not previously disclosed in discovery
9 SHALL be provided via e-mail or overnight delivery so that it is received by the above exhibit
10 exchange deadline.
11 1. At the exhibit conference, the parties will determine whether there are objections to the
12 admission of each of the exhibits. Defendant will prepare separate indexes; one listing joint exhibits,
13 one listing Plaintiff’s exhibits and one listing Defendant’s exhibits. In advance of the conference, the
14 parties must have a complete set of their proposed exhibits to be able to fully discuss whether
15 evidentiary objections exist. Thus, any exhibit not previously provided in discovery SHALL be
16 provided at least five court days in advance of the exhibit conference.
17 2. At the conference, the parties shall identify any duplicate exhibits, i.e., any document
18 which both sides desire to introduce into evidence. These exhibits SHALL be marked as joint exhibits
19 and numbered as directed below. Joint exhibits SHALL be admitted into evidence upon introduction
20 and motion of a party, without further foundation.
21 All joint exhibits SHALL be pre-marked with numbers preceded by the designation “JT” (e.g.
22 JT/1, JT/2, etc.). Plaintiff’s exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 1 by the
23 designation PX (e.g. PX1, PX2, etc.). Defendant’s exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers
24 beginning with 501 preceded by the designation DX (e.g. DX501, DX502, etc.). The parties SHALL
25 number each page of any exhibit exceeding one page in length (e.g. PX1-1, PX1-2, PX1-3, etc.).
26 If originals of exhibits are unavailable, the parties may substitute legible copies. If any
27 document is offered that is not fully legible, the Court may exclude it from evidence.
28 Each joint exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the
1 exhibits. The index shall consist of a column for the exhibit number, one for a description of the
2 exhibit and one column entitled “Admitted in Evidence” (as shown in the example below).

3 INDEX OF JOINT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT# DESCRIPTION ADMITTED
4 IN EVIDENCE

5
6 3. As to any exhibit which is not a joint exhibit but to which there is no objection to its
7 introduction, the exhibit will likewise be appropriately marked, i.e., as PX1, or as DX501 and will be
8 indexed as such on the index of the offering party. Such exhibits will be admitted upon introduction
9 and motion of the party, without further foundation.
10 4. Each exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the
11 exhibits. Each index shall consist of the exhibit number, the description of the exhibit and the three
12 columns as shown in the example below.
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
13
EXHIBIT# DESCRIPTION ADMITTED OBJECTION OBJECTION
IN FOUNDATION OTHER
14
EVIDENCE

15

16 5. On the index, as to exhibits to which the only objection is a lack of foundation, the
17 parties will place a mark under the column heading entitled “Objection Foundation.”
18 6. On the index, as to exhibits to which there are objections to admissibility that are not
19 based solely on a lack of foundation, the parties will place a mark under the column heading entitled
20 “Other Objections.”
21 7. As to each exhibit which is not objected to in the index, it shall be marked and received
22 into evidence and will require no further foundation.
23 After the exhibit conference, Plaintiff and counsel for the defendants SHALL develop four
24 complete, legible sets of exhibits. The Defendant SHALL deliver three sets of the exhibit binders to
25 the Courtroom Deputy and provide one set of the exhibit to the opponent, no later than 4:00 p.m., on
26 January 22, 2026. Defendant SHALL also provide three sets of the joint exhibits to the Courtroom
27 Deputy.
28
1 L. POST-TRIAL EXHIBIT RETENTION
2 Defendant SHALL retrieve the original exhibits from the Courtroom Deputy following the
3 verdict in the case and SHALL retain possession of and keep safe all exhibits until final judgment and
4 all appeals are exhausted.
5 M. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS
6 The following is a list of discovery documents – portions of depositions, answers to
7 interrogatories, and responses to requests for admissions – that the parties expect to offer at trial.
8 NO DISCOVERY DOCUMENT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE
9 ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER
10 SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local
11 Rule 281(b)(12).
12 Plaintiff’s Documents
13 1. Defendant Medina admissions (Doc 172-1, pp. 5-23).
14 2. Former Defendant B. Markin admissions (Doc 172-1, pp. 123-135).
15 3. Former Defendant J. Barrajas admissions (Doc 172-1, pp. 136-152)
16 4. Former Defendant G. Chacon Response to Interrogatories (Doc. 172-1, pp.153-169)
17 5. Former Defendant Sanchez Response to Interrogatories (Doc. 172-1, pp. 170-188)
18 6. Former Defendant Guerrero Response to Interrogatories (Doc. 172-1, pp. 189-207).
19 7. Defendant Medinas Response to Interrogatories (Doc. 172-1, pp. 208-230).
20 Defendant’s Documents
21 Defendant may use excerpts of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, taken on March 7, 2025, for
22 impeachment purposes at trial.
23 N. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS
24 No further discovery is sought by either party.
25 O. STIPULATIONS
26 Defendant is willing to stipulate to the authenticity of Plaintiff’s unaltered records from his
27 central file maintained by CDCR and any CDCR record generated and maintained in the regular
28 course of business, which may be used as exhibits at trial. Defendant reserves the right to object to
1 such exhibits on other grounds.
2 P. AMENDMENTS/ DISMISSALS
3 None.
4 Q. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
5 The parties attended mediation on May 13, 2025, and were unable to settle the case. Defendant
6 is ready to proceed to trial.
7 R. AGREED STATEMENT
8 None. Defendant does not believe an agreed statement of facts is feasible.
9 S. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES
10 Defendant requests bifurcation as to the amount of any punitive damages if the jury returns a
11 finding of malice.
12 T. APPOINTMENT OF IMPARTIAL EXPERTS
13 None requested.
14 U. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
15 Plaintiff represents himself in this case. Defendant does not anticipate seeking any attorney’s
16 fees if she prevails.
17 V. TRIAL DATE/ ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL
18 Jury trial is set to begin January 27, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Jennifer L.
19 Thurston at the Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California.
20 Trial is expected to 3-4 days.
21 W. TRIAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSIONS
22 1. Trial Briefs
23 The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file trial briefs. If any party
24 wishes to file a trial brief, they must do so on or before January 20, 2026, and in accordance with
25 Local Rule 285.
26 2. Jury Voir Dire
27 The parties are required to file their proposed voir dire questions, in accordance with Local
28 Rule 162.1, on or before January 13, 2026.
1 3. Jury Instructions & Verdict Form
2 The parties shall serve, via e-mail or fax, their proposed jury instructions in accordance with
3 Local Rule 163 and their proposed verdict form on one another no later than December 30, 2025. The
4 parties SHALL conduct a conference to address their proposed jury instructions and verdict form no
5 later than January 5, 2026. At the conference, the parties SHALL attempt to reach agreement on the
6 verdict form and jury instructions for use at trial. The parties SHALL file their agreed-upon verdict
7 form and all agreed-upon jury instructions no later than January 13, 2026, and identify such filings
8 accordingly. At the same time, the parties SHALL lodge, via e-mail, a copy of the joint proposed jury
9 instructions and joint proposed verdict form (in Word format) to JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov.
10 If and only if, the parties after genuine, reasonable and good faith effort cannot agree upon
11 a verdict form or certain specific jury instructions, the parties SHALL file their respective proposed
12 (disputed) jury instructions and proposed (disputed) verdict form no later than January 13, 2026 and
13 identify such filings accordingly. At the same time, each party SHALL lodge, via e-mail, a copy of
14 their proposed (disputed) jury instructions and proposed (disputed) verdict form (in Word format) to
15 JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov.
16 In selecting proposed instructions, the parties shall use Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury
17 Instructions or California’s CACI instructions to the extent possible. All jury instructions and verdict
18 forms shall indicate the party submitting the instruction or verdict form (i.e., joint, plaintiff’s,
19 defendant’s, etc.), the number of the proposed instruction in sequence, a brief title for the instruction
20 describing the subject matter, the complete text of the instruction, and the legal authority supporting
21 the instruction. Each instruction SHALL be numbered.
22 X. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER
23 Within 14 days after the date of service of this order, the parties may file written objections to
24 any of the provisions set forth in this order. The parties may file any replies to the objections within
25 seven days. The objections shall clearly specify the requested modifications, corrections, additions or
26 deletions. If no objections are filed, the order will become final without further order of the
27 Court.
28 The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
1 || and Local Rule 283, this order shall control the subsequent course of this action and shall be modifiec
2 || only to prevent manifest injustice.
3 |/Y. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
4 The parties are advised that the Court’s trial schedule, absent other Court conflicts, is as
5 || follows: On the first day of trial and until jury selection is completed, the trial day will begin at 8:30
6 || a.m. and complete around 4:30 p.m., with an hour-long lunch break. Thereafter, until the jury begins
7 || deliberating, the trial day will begin at 8:00 a.m. and complete at 1:30 p.m., with two extended rest
8 || breaks and no lunch break. Once the jury begins deliberating, the jury will set their own schedule. Th
9 || parties SHALL schedule their witnesses to avoid waste of the jury’s time.
10 || Z. COMPLIANCE
11 Strict compliance with this order and its requirements is mandatory. All parties and their
12 || counsel are subject to sanctions, including dismissal or entry of default, for failure to fully comply
13 || with this order and its requirements.
14
15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated: _ November 18, 2025 Cerin | Tower
TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11223464. Public record. Not legal advice.