Mendoza v. General Motors LLC et al

Filing 56

ORDER GRANTING 55 Stipulation re: Non-Dispositive and Pretrial Motions, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/13/2018. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIRIAM MICHELLE MENDOZA,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-0967 - LJO - JLT
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION RE: NONDISPOSITIVE & PRETRIAL MOTIONS
(Doc. 55-1)

The parties have stipulated that they will not make any Daubert challenges to the experts,

17
18

David Bosch, Patrick Donahue, Louis Peck, Mark Pozzi, Parris Ward, Carley Ward, Brent Benson,

19

Jeffrey Croteau, Huizhen Lu, Elizabeth Raphael, and David Viano though they may seek to limit the

20

testimony of any expert. (Doc. 55-1) Likewise, they agree they will file their in limine motions at the

21

same time as their joint pretrial statement.1 Thus, the Court ORDERS:

22

1.

The stipulation is GRANTED;

23

2.

As to motions in limine, the Court ORDERS counsel to meet and confer on anticipated

24

motions in limine and to distill evidentiary issues. This Court further ORDERS the parties to file

25

motions in limine only as to important, critical matters, keeping in mind that most evidentiary issues

26

can be resolved easily with a conference among the Court and counsel. If the Court surmises that the

27
28

1

Usually, the Court would set filing deadlines for motions in limine at the pretrial conference. However, because the
parties agree to file their motions, they SHALL be filed at the same time as the joint pretrial statement, though counsel
SHALL file and docket them separately.

1

1

parties have filed motions in limine without meaningful, genuine meeting and conferring, the Court

2

will strike the motions in limine and not hear them.

3

Moving and opposition papers must be brief, succinct, and well-organized. The Court

4

encourages each party to consolidate their respective motions in limine in a single document,

5

organized by number and to file oppositions in a single document responding to the numbered issues

6

under the same corresponding headers. For example, if a defendant has five evidentiary issues, it

7

would file one motion that has five headers: Motion in limine No. 1; Motion in limine No. 2, and so

8

on; and, in response, plaintiffs would file one opposition document organized in the same way. Said

9

another way, in order to maintain a well-organized docket in preparation for trial, the Court

10

discourages parties from filing multiple motions in limine in a string of separate docket entries.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 13, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2