United States District Court, E.D. New York
John J. Nonnemacher, Esq., Of Counsel Bader Yakitis and Nonnenmacher, New York, NY, Attorneys for the Plaintiff,
Jeltje DeJong, Esq., Kelly E. Wright, Esq., Of Counsel. Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, NY, Attorneys for the Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
ARTHUR D. SPATT, District Judge.
Familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this case is presumed. Jury selection is scheduled for March 16, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.
On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiff Scott Eberle (the "Plaintiff") commenced this action, which arises from an incident which occurred on August 3, 2011 while the Plaintiff was in the custody of the Southampton Town Police. This action was commenced against the Defendants the Town of Southampton, the Southampton Town Police Department, Police Chief James Overton, Police Chief William Wilson, Detective Steven Miller, and John and Jane Doe Supervisors, Detectives and Police Officers employed by the Town of Southampton.
On October 30, 2013, all discovery, inclusive of expert discovery, was closed.
On November 8, 2013, the parties filed a proposed joint pre-trial order (the "JPTO").
On November 12, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay approved the JPTO and returned the case to this Court for final disposition.
On December 19, 2013, consistent with this Court's Memorandum of Decision and Order dated November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, substituting Detective Robert Stabile for Detective Steven Miller.
On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff moved to conduct a non-party deposition of Ralph Oswald.
On February 27, 2014, Judge Lindsay granted that motion.
Presently pending before the Court is a motion, filed on January 26, 2015, by the Defendants for leave to amend the JPTO, which, as noted above, was filed and approved in November 2013. The Defendants seek to (1) supplement their list of trial witnesses by adding certain Town employees concededly not included in their Rule 26 disclosures, namely Susan Sinclair, Aida Davila, Regina Dizinno, and Todd Spencer and (2) remove all references and documents relating to claims voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff by a stipulation entered on December 1, 2014. That part of the motion seeking to remove all references and documents relating to claims voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff by a stipulation entered December 1, 2014 is unopposed and is granted. The balance of the motion is denied.
A motion to amend a pretrial order is governed by Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e). This provision states that "[t]he court may modify the [pretrial] order issued after a final pretrial conference only to prevent manifest injustice." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e). Further, of relevance here, the Court's Individual Rules provide that "[o]nly listed witnesses [in the JPTO] ...