Bui v. City and County of San Francisco et al
| Chien Van Bui |
| City and County of San Francisco, Austin Wilson and Timothy A. Ortiz |
| 4:2011cv04189 |
| August 24, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Oakland Office |
| San Francisco |
| Laurel Beeler |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
306
Order granting 304 the plaintiffs' motion to Strike and denying 305 the defendants' request for special interrogatories entered by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. The court grants the plaintiffs' motion to strike Dr. Laufer 's testimony in part and strikes Dr. Laufer's testimony with respect to (1) how far Mr. Bui was from the officers when he was shot and (2) what position he was in when he was shot. The court will instruct the jury that they must disregard t hat testimony. The defendants may not make any reference to Dr. Laufer's testimony in connection with those two subjects. (The defendants can make arguments about those subjects based on other admitted evidence -- e.g., they can argue about the distance Mr. Bui was from the officers when he was shot based on admitted evidence about room layouts but they may not refer to Dr. Laufer's testimony on those subjects in any way in their closing arguments.)The court denies the defendants&# 039; proposed interrogatories. They are suggestive, there is no requirement to give them, and the defendants submitted them late, over two-and-a-half hours after the Sunday at noon deadline that the court set to give it time to resolve all issues by Monday morning.
|
|
Filing
257
ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler. The court adopts the attached Final Pretrial Order. The attached order disposes of the parties' motions in limine. The disposition of those motions in the attached order controls over the summary of the holdings in this docket entry. The attached order grants the plaintiffs' motion in limine #1, 200 ; grants the plaintiffs' motion in limine #2, 200 ; grants in part and denies in part the plaintiffs' motion in limine #3, [19 4] ; grants in part and denies in part the plaintiffs' motion in limine #4, 195 ; grants the plaintiffs' motion in limine #5 200 ; defers ruling on the plaintiffs' motion in limine #6 196 ; grants in part and denies in part the p laintiffs' motion in limine #7 197 ; denies the defendants' motion in limine #1 208 ; grants in part and denies in part the defendants' motion in limine #2 209 ; grants in part and denies in part the defendants' motion in li mine #3 210 ; grants in part and denies in part the defendants' motion in limine #4 211 ; grants in part the defendants' motion in limine #5 212 ; grants in part and denies in part the defendants' motion in limine #6 213 ; deni es the defendants' motion in limine #7 214 ; grants in part and denies in part the defendants' motion in limine #8 243 ; and finds as moot the defendants' motion in limine #9 244 . The plaintiffs' motion, 199 , to exce ed seven pages for motion in limine #1 is granted. The plaintiffs' motion, 246 , to strike the defendants' amended response to the plaintiffs motion in limine #7 and to strike the defendants' motions in limine #8 and #9 is denied as moot. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2018)
|
|
Filing
193
ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting in part 187 Administrative Motion to Modify the Court's Case Management Order to Allow Defendants to Supplement Expert Witness Based on Unavailability of Witness; denying 192 Administrative Motion to Strike Portion of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Administrative Motion to Supplement Expert Witness.As set forth in the attached order, the defendants' administrative motion to substitute their expert witness is granted in part. The def endants may substitute their expert provided that their new expert does not provide opinions that are different from or in addition to those that were offered by their original expert. The defendants' motion to strike is denied. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2018)
|
|
Filing
162
ORDER DENYING 159 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO VACATE THE STAY PENDING APPEAL. The court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion. In light of Defendants' appeal, the court vacates all remaining dates and deadlines currently set by this court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 10/9/2014.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014)
|
|
Filing
146
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AT ECF NO. 81 (This order amends the order at ECF No. 137.) (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 7/25/2014)
|
|
Filing
140
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. To keep the case moving along, and pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(d), the court directs Plaintiffs to file a response to De fendants' motion by 5:00 p.m. PDT on Wednesday, July 23, 2014, so the court can discuss it with the parties at the case management conference set for Thursday, July 24, 2014. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 7/18/2014. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2014)
|
|
Filing
137
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 81 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 6/27/2014. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2014)
|
|
Filing
108
ORDER GRANTING IN PART 101 PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. So that the docket is clear and to enable easy citation, the court ORDERS Plaintiffs to do the following: 1. File as a separate docket entry the redacted oppo sition brief (e.g., ECF No. 109) 2. File as separate docket entry and under seal the unredacted opposition brief with the sealable portions highlighted (e.g., ECF No. 110) 3. File as a separate docket entry the Schwartz Declaration with all of its exhibits (Exs. A - DD), with Exhibit BB filed under seal (e.g., ECF No. 111) 4. File as a separate docket entry the redacted Clark Declaration (e.g., ECF No. 112) 5. File as a separate docket entry and under seal the unredacted Clark Declaration wi th the sealable portions highlighted (e.g., ECF No. 113) 6. Provide the court with chambers copies of each of the above-listed documents. Plaintiffs do not need to re-file the Herrmann Declaration (ECF No. 103) or the Tran Declaration (ECF No. 104). Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 4/24/2014.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2014)
|
|
Filing
97
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO SUBMIT REBUTTAL EXPERT WITNESS AFTER THE DEADLINE. Under the circumstances, and given the time line, the court directs the parties to try and work it out (and they should) as soon as p ossible, and if they cannot, Defendants must file a two-page letter brief by Monday, March 31, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Plaintiffs may file an optional one-page reply by Tuesday, April 1, 2014. The court thereafter will decide if further briefing is needed. If the parties work it out, they should notify the court by March 31, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 3/28/2014. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2014)
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER SETTING DATES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 2/10/2014. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2014)
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' LETTER DATED DECEMBER 11, 2013 (Re: ECF No. 68). Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 12/12/2013. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2013)
|
|
Filing
63
ORDER REGARDING 57 THE PARTIES' DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTERS FILED OCTOBER 23, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 11/8/2013.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2013)
|
|
Filing
56
AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 10/3/2013. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2013)
|
|
Filing
42
STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 2/11/2013. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2013)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER granting 28 STIPULATIONTo Modify Case Management and Pretrial Order filed by City and County of San Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 5/21/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2012)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granting 27 Stipulation to continue settlement conference. (rmm2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2012)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
