United States District Court, D. New Mexico
ORDER RESULTING FROM PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR United States Magistrate Judge
MATTER is before the Court on issues heard at the pretrial
conference on March 30, 2017. The Court heard from counsel on
their exhibit and witness lists. The Court also discussed at
the pretrial conference the following matters: the trial
schedule, opening statements, witness order and availability,
and courtroom technology. Having reviewed the pertinent
filings and relevant law, and being otherwise fully advised
in the premises, the Court makes the following rulings:
parties filed a Consolidated Exhibit List on March 20, 2017.
[Doc. 61]. The Court admits into evidence Exhibits 1-83, all
exhibits in the Consolidated Exhibit List.
filed an Exhibit List on March 20, 2017. [Doc. 58]. Plaintiff
objected to Defendant's Exhibit G on March 27, 2017.
[Doc. 66]. Defendant filed an Amended Exhibit List on March
28, 2017. [Doc. 69]. The Court admits into evidence Exhibits
E and H from Defendant's Amended Exhibit List.
Plaintiff's objection to Defendant's Exhibit G is
SUSTAINED; the Court excludes from evidence Exhibit G. The
Court also excludes as cumulative all other exhibits in
Defendant's Exhibit List [Doc. 58] and Amended Exhibit
List [Doc. 69].
filed a Witness List on March 20, 2017. [Doc. 60]. Defendant
did not respond or object to it. Defendant filed a Witness
List on March 20, 2017. [Doc. 57]. Plaintiff objected to
Defendant's proposed witness, Javier Rivera, identified
by Defendant as a “[r]ebuttal witness on train
operations utilized by Union Pacific Railroad, ” on
March 27, 2017. [Doc. 66]. Plaintiff's objection is
SUSTAINED. However, the Court may reconsider its ruling if
Plaintiff elicits testimony from one of its witnesses or
otherwise introduces evidence on this subject.
of Fact and Conclusions of Law
filed his Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on
March 20, 2017. [Doc. 62]. Defendant filed no response or
objection. Defendant filed its Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law on March 20, 2017. [Doc. 59]. Plaintiff
objected to Defendant asserting “the affirmative
defense of contributory negligence.” [Doc. 67]. The
Court will defer ruling on this issue. The Court notes that
New Mexico, whose law the parties agree governs this case,
has adopted a pure comparative negligence scheme in
apportioning fault in negligence cases. See Scott v.
Rizzo, 1981-NMSC-021, 96 N.M. 682; Bartlett v. New
Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 1982-NMCA-048, 98 N.M. 152.
Court has set aside four days for trial beginning April 18,
2017. Court will begin at 8:30 a.m. and conclude by 5:00 p.m.