1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH LAKE, No. 2:19-cv-01439-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE 14 CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., PLAINTIFF’S JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT AND EXHIBIT LIST 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 186) 16

17 18 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief to file his 19 joint pretrial statement and exhibit list filed on October 2, 2025. (Doc. No. 186.) For the reasons 20 set forth below, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff Lake brings this civil rights action against defendants City of Vallejo, City of 23 Vallejo Police Department, Anthony Romero-Cano, Travis Aspegren, and Theodore J. Postolaki, 24 asserting claims arising under 42 U.S.C § 1983 for unreasonable use of force and unlawful arrest 25 in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and for common law battery. (Doc. No. 127.) 26 On August 14, 2025, the parties filed a joint pretrial statement. (Doc. No. 176.) The Final 27 Pretrial Conference in this action was held on August 28, 2025. (Doc. No. 178.) On September 28 2, 2025, the court issued a tentative pretrial order. (Doc. No. 179.) On September 16, 2025, 1 plaintiff and defendants filed separate objections to the tentative pretrial order. (Doc. Nos. 183, 2 184.) On October 1, 2025, the court issued the final pretrial order governing the trial of this case. 3 (Doc. No. 185.) 4 A day later, plaintiff’s counsel filed the pending motion for administrative relief to file 5 what is inaccurately characterized by counsel as a joint pretrial statement and exhibit list. (Doc. 6 No. 186.) Through the pending motion plaintiff’s counsel seeks to add numerous exhibits, one 7 witness, and other material not reflected in the court’s Final Pretrial Order of October 1, 2025. 8 On October 6, 2025, defendants filed their opposition to the pending motion, and on October 8, 9 2025, plaintiff filed his reply thereto. (Doc. Nos. 188, 189.) 10 LEGAL STANDARD 11 “The court may modify the order issued after a final pretrial conference only to prevent 12 manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). A district court should consider the following four 13 factors to determine whether to modify a final pretrial order: 14 (1) the degree of prejudice or surprise to the defendants if the order is modified; (2) the ability of the defendants to cure any prejudice; 15 (3) the impact of the modification on the orderly and efficient conduct of the case; and (4) any degree of willfulness or bad faith 16 on the part of the party seeking the modification. 17 Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange,

(9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). “It is the moving 18 party’s burden to show that a review of these factors warrants a conclusion that manifest injustice 19 would result if the pretrial order is not modified.” Wilson v. Pan NorCal, LLC, No. 2:18-cv- 20 00660-KJM-KJN,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2023) (citation omitted). Further: 21 This standard is distinct from the standard that governs a party’s request to modify a scheduling order under Rule 16(b). To modify a 22 scheduling order, a moving party must demonstrate “good cause,” the touchstone of which is the diligence in pursuing the modification. 23 See Johnson v. Mammoth Recs., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). Although the “manifest injustice” standard is distinct from 24 the “good cause” standard, a party’s lack of diligence might undercut its attempts to prove “manifest injustice”; adverse consequences for 25 a party’s case are not the “manifest injustice” Rule 16(e) was designed to prevent, if those consequences arise from a lack of 26 diligence. WLD Investors, Inc. v. Xecom Corp., 35 Fed. App’x 609, 612 (9th Cir. 2002) (unpublished). 27 28 Id. at *2. 1 ANALYSIS 2 Plaintiffs counsel attaches a declaration to the pending motion explaining, in a somewhat 3 | convoluted manner, that she “thought we had to meet and confer on everything before efiling and 4 | Mr. James Cook had been meeting and conferring with Mr. Whitefleet while I work[ed] on 5 | another trial.” (Doc. No. 186 at 5.) Yet, “[t]he parties were not able to meet and confer and I was 6 | not aware of the deadline.” Ud.) This explanation reveals, at the very least, a lack of diligence on 7 | the part of plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiffs counsel signed the parties’ actual joint pretrial 8 | statement, appeared at the Final Pretrial Conference, and filed objections on plaintiff's behalf to 9 | the court’s tentative pretrial order. (Doc. Nos. 176, 178, 184.) At any of these various stages, 10 || counsel could have alerted the court to plaintiff's desire to add additional exhibits, a new witness, 11 | and other material to the Final Pretrial Order but did not. The results of plaintiff's lack of 12 | diligence does not constitute the manifest injustice that is required in order to justify modification 13 | ofa final pretrial order. Wilson,

, at *2 (citation omitted). As such, “([t]his 14 | case does not qualify as the type of exceptional situation required for modification under Rule 15 | 16(e).” Jauregui v. City of Glendale,

(9th Cir. 1988). 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's motion for administrative relief to add a 18 || witness, exhibits and other material to the Final Pretrial Order (Doc. No. 186) is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ October 21, 2025 Dae A. 2, gel 21 DALE A. DROZD 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28