Opinion
No. CIV S-04-0764 FCD DAD P.
October 6, 2008
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is currently set for trial on October 21, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.
On July 16, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions, claiming that defense counsel had not turned over all of defendants' trial exhibits as required by this court's March 11, 2008 order. On September 10, 2008, the undersigned ordered defense counsel to file and serve copies of the trial exhibits not included in the exhibits filed and served by defendants on June 22, 2007 and to show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for the late submission of those additional trial exhibits.
On September 15, 2008, defense counsel filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion for sanctions, explaining that defendants have no additional trial exhibits to exchange with plaintiff. Specifically, defense counsel states that although he originally listed the abstracts of judgment with respect to anticipated inmate witnesses as potential trial exhibits in anticipation of having those documents available for trial, they were unable to procure them by the date set for the exchange of trial exhibits. Defense counsel maintains that defendants are planning to use at trial only those exhibits that they have already exchanged with plaintiff and have always understood that any exhibits that were not exchanged could not be used at trial even if listed in the final pretrial order. Plaintiff has filed a reply to defense counsel's opposition, reiterating that sanctions should be imposed because defense counsel still has not turned over the abstracts of judgment with respect to the anticipated inmate witnesses.
Good cause appearing, the court will discharge its order to show cause. Because defense counsel has complied with the court's previous order to turn over all exhibits that will be used at trial, the court will deny plaintiff's motion for sanctions.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The court's September 10, 2008 order to show cause (Doc. No. 94) is discharged; and
2. Plaintiff's July 16, 2008 motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 93) is denied.