Jacques vs. Bank of America Corporation, et al.
Filing
135
ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES. signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/19/2016. (Hernandez, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
TROY JACQUES,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
CASE NO.: 1:12-cv-00821-SAB
ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING
ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
OF THE PARTIES
(ECF Nos. 129, 131)
16
17
On January 28, 2015, an amended scheduling order issued setting pretrial and trial
18
dates in this action. (ECF No. 129.) On January 14, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation to
19
continue the pretrial dates set forth in the January 28, 2015 scheduling order. The Court
20
finds good cause exists to amend the dates consistent with the parties’ stipulation.
21
Additionally, the Court finds that, due to the continuance of the pretrial conference, it is
22
necessary to set forth the motion in limine dates at this time.
23
Any party may file a motion in limine, which is a procedural mechanism to limit in
24
advance testimony or evidence in a particular area. United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108,
25
1111 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). The Court orders the parties to meet and
26
confer to attempt to come to an agreement on any issue before it is presented to the Court
27
in a motion in limine. If this Court surmises that the parties have filed motions in limine
28
without meaningful, genuine attempts to meet and confer, this Court will strike the motions
in limine and remove them from calendar.
-1-
1
This Court further orders the parties to file motions in limine only with respect to
2
important, critical matters.
Most evidentiary issues can be resolved easily with a
3
conference between counsel or with the Court. Motions in limine on abstract evidentiary
4
issues or issues more appropriately addressed by the Court on a case-by-case basis (such as
5
a motion in limine to exclude all irrelevant evidence) will be looked upon with disfavor.
6
The parties shall not file separate motions in limine for every issue presented to the
7
Court. Rather, each party may file one consolidated motion in limine which is subdivided
8
into separate sections for each issue setting forth the legal authority and analysis. The
9
responding party shall file one opposition in response addressing each motion in limine
10
issue in a separate section. Counsel are advised that moving and opposition papers must be
11
brief, succinct and well-organized.
12
The parties, after meeting and conferring, shall file and serve their truly disputed
13
motions in limine no later than August 24, 2016. Oppositions in response to such motions
14
in limine shall be filed and served no later than August 31, 2016. This Court will neither
15
accept nor consider reply papers. This Court will conduct a hearing on the motions in
16
limine on September 7, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9 (SAB) of this Court, unless this
17
Court determines that a hearing is not necessary.
18
19
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
deadlines in the January 28, 2015 amended scheduling order are amended as follows:
20
Non-Expert Discovery:
April 22, 2016
21
Expert Disclosure:
May 6, 2016
22
Supplemental Expert Disclosure:
May 20, 2016
23
Expert Discovery:
June 3, 2016
24
Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline:
April 22, 2016
Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline:
June 10, 2016
Pre-Trial Conference:
August 19, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9
25
26
27
28
(SAB)
Motion in Limine:
August 24, 2016
-2-
1
Opposition to Motions in Limine:
August 31, 2016
2
Motion in Limine Hearing:
September 7, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom
9 (SAB)
3
Trial shall remain on September 20, 2016 at 8:30 in Courtroom 9 (SAB).
4
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 19, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?