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)

Download PDF
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?