See United States v. Hicks, 103 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir.1996). A. Nonexpert Witnesses 1. Authority to Order Disclosure of Nonexpert Witnesses The district court’s March 15, 2005 case management order did not cite any authority for its requirement that the government produce a “finalized list of witnesses and trial exhibits” by September 30, 2005. “As a threshold matter, a court may not exercise any supervisory power absent a clear basis in fact and law for doing so.” United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir.1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Presumably, the court was relying on its authority under Rule 16(d) as well as its authority to manage its docket. See Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) (citation and internal quotation marks
holding that a clerks scheduling duties as part of a courts inherent power to control its docket is subject to absolute immunity holding that georgia courts may exercise their inherent power to dismiss cases brought by nonresident aliens recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals holding that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets as long as its exercise is not inconsistent with a rule or statute recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it