You're viewing Docket Item 151 from the case Bichindaritz v. University of Washington. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:10-cv-01371-RSL Document 151 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ISABELLE BICHINDARITZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON,

Defendant.

Case No. C10-1371RSL
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO PRECLUDE
PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING
NEW THEORIES, WITNESSES, OR
EXHIBITS

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant University of

Washington’s Motion to Preclude Plaintiff from Presenting Proposed New Theories,
Witnesses, or Exhibits.” Dkt. # 133. Plaintiff will not be permitted to present evidence
regarding claims that have not been asserted in this litigation. Plaintiff is not, however,
bound to the form of the pretrial order that was generated in the fall of 2011. That
document was not filed with the Court and events have since occurred that may impact
the way in which the parties decide to pursue their claims and defenses.1 The revised
case management orders reset the deadline for submission of the pretrial order and left

1 The Court struck the original trial date so that the parties could participate in a

settlement conference before the Honorable James L. Robart. In addition, some of defendant’s
key witnesses have moved and plaintiff has associated new counsel.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING
NEW THEORIES, WITNESSES, OR EXHIBITS

Case 2:10-cv-01371-RSL Document 151 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 2

the parties with ample time to made any changes or additions they felt were necessary.
Plaintiff is entitled to present the best available evidence in support of her claims and is
not required to adhere to the script that was drafted by her former counsel. If, for
example, new counsel’s review of the documents produced during discovery reveals
additional documents that support plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the Court will not prohibit
their admission simply because former counsel missed them five months ago.

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion (Dkt. # 133) is

Dated this 19th day of March, 2012.

ARobert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING
NEW THEORIES, WITNESSES, OR EXHIBITS

2