Opinion
2:19-cv-01108-DJC-AC
09-19-2024
DAVID ARNOLD RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. N. ALBONICO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff David Arnold Rodriguez has filed Objections to the Court's Amended Final Pretrial Order. (ECF No. 122.) First, Plaintiff objects to venue being based on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), arguing that venue provision does not permit suits for money damages against federal officers in their individual capacities. However, Plaintiff's argument does not pertain to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), but rather 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), as courts have held that venue provision does not apply to actions for money damages brought against federal officials in their individual capacities. Stafford v. Briggs, 444 U.S. 527, 542 (1980). Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a fact which Defendants do not contest. Thus, Plaintiff's objection is overruled.
Second, Plaintiff objects to the Court's refusal to appoint impartial expert witnesses in this matter. While district courts may appoint impartial expert witnesses under Federal Rule of Evidence 706(a), courts may not do so solely to benefit a party to the litigation; rather, impartial experts may only be appointed to assist courts in evaluating complex evidence or issues. See, e.g., Taylor v. Kuerston, 598 F.Supp.3d 874 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (denying request to appoint a neutral expert where the appointment appeared to primarily benefit the plaintiff, not the court). Here, Plaintiff has not identified any particularly complex issues that require an impartial expert's opinion. Plaintiff's objection is overruled.
Finally, Plaintiff indicates that he has not received any discovery documents from Defendants. While it is unclear what discovery exactly Plaintiff is referring to, the Court previously ordered Defendants to meet and confer with Plaintiff and provide him with any photographs in the record. If Defendants have not yet complied with this order, they are hereby ordered to comply within fourteen (14) days of this Order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 122) are overruled; and
2. The Court's Amended Final Pretrial Order (ECF No. 121) is now final.