Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pacific Company

Filing 205

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED "CORRECTIVE" JURY INSTRUCTIONS (Doc. 188) signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on June 3, 2013. (Munoz, I)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

GERAWAN FARMING, INC.,

10

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT’S
PROPOSED “CORRECTIVE” JURY
INSTRUCTIONS

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 1:11-cv-01273 LJO BAM

v.
REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY,

13

(Doc. 188)

Defendant.

14

/

15

On May 28, 2013, Defendant Rehrig Pacific Company (“Defendant”) filed three “corrective”

16

jury instructions in addition to eight other disputed jury instructions. The Court will not consider the

17

three “corrective” jury instructions. The final pretrial order limited each party to eight disputed jury

18

instructions and stated that without a prior order the Court will not consider the additional proposed

19

jury instructions.1 In addition, it is premature to consider corrective instruction, especially in light of

20

the Order that is being issued concurrently. (see end of other order dealing with jury instructions).
DEAC_Signature-END:

21
22
23

b9ed48bb
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

June 3, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

26
27
28

1

The final pretrial order stated that the court will disregard jury instructions past the first ten;
however, it is evident from the rest of the order that the parties were actually limited to eight disputed
jury instructions. (See Doc. 167 at 26.)
1

1

b9ed48bb

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
27
28
2