Fresno Rock Taco, LLC v. National Surety Corporation

Filing 260

ORDER that the parties file reply briefs on the motions to amend the pretrial order by no later than Friday, July 12, 2013. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/9/2013. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRESNO ROCK TACO, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

CASE No. 1:11-cv-00845-SKO
ORDER THAT THE PARTIES FILE
REPLY BRIEFS ON THE MOTIONS
TO AMEND THE PRETRIAL ORDER

v.

14
15

NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION,

17

(Docs. 239, 241)

Defendant.

16

_________________________________/

18
19

Plaintiffs Fresno Rock Taco, LLC and Zone Sports Center, LLC ("Plaintiffs") and

20

Defendant National Surety Corporation ("Defendant") have filed motions to amend the

21

September 11, 2012, pretrial order, and the parties have filed opposition briefs, opposing the

22

requests for amendment to the pretrial order.

23

opposition briefs, reply briefs with supporting documentation are necessary. The parties shall

24

file reply briefs no later than Friday, July 12, 2013, addressing the issues identified below. In

25

drafting their reply briefs, the parties are directed to review the Ninth Circuit's decision in R & R

26

Sales, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 673 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2012) as it pertains to Rule 26(a) initial

27

disclosure issues.

28

1

Having reviewed the parties' motions and

1

Plaintiffs' reply brief shall address the following issues:

2

1.

Provide evidence to support Plaintiffs’ contention that the additional

3

witnesses requested by Defendant were not part of Defendant's initial or

4

supplemental disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) or

5

(e);
2.

6

Explain whether the documents Plaintiffs propose to add as exhibits have been
provided to Defendant, and if not, why they have not been provided;1

7
3.

8

Address Defendant's argument that Plaintiffs' motion to amend the pretrial order
is untimely;

9
4.

10

Address Defendant's argument that Plaintiffs failed to identify the attorney

11

billing records and Defendant's financial information as part of the Rule 26(a)

12

disclosures.

13

Defendant's reply brief shall address the following issues:

14

1.

Provide evidence to support Defendant’s contention, that attorney billing

15

records and Defendant's financial statements/information were not

16

identified/described as part of Plaintiffs' required initial or supplemental

17

disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) or (e);
2.

18

Provide citation to the record of Mr. Binder's trial testimony that contradicts
undisputed fact no. 9;

19
3.

20

Explain whether Defendant requested, at any time during discovery, that
Plaintiffs "make available for inspection" Plaintiffs' attorney's billing records;

21
4.

22

Address Plaintiffs’ argument that the additional email evidence Defendant seeks

23

to add includes evidence that should have been produced at Mr. Binder's

24

deposition.

25
26
27
28

1

Should the pretrial order be amended to include these documents, the court will address any admissibility issues
during the course of the trial.

2

1

This list of issues is not intended to limit the scope of the parties' reply briefs. The

2

parties are free to address any additional arguments raised in either the motions or the

3

opposition briefs.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall each file reply briefs no

4
5

later than Friday, July 12, 2013.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

10
11
12

July 9, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

ie14hje

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3