Johnson et al v. City of Atwater et al

Filing 103

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND PROPOSED VOIR DIRE, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/28/2019. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RICHARD DEAN JOHNSON, and
LORI JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs,

10
v.

11
12

CITY OF ATWATER, et al,
Defendants,

13

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-1636 AWI SAB
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
AND PROPOSED VOIR DIRE
(Doc. Nos. 101, 102)

Defendants

14
Plaintiffs Richard and Lori Johnson are proceeding to trial on four claims, each arising

15
16
17
18
19
20

from a continuing dispute between them and the City of Atwater over the non-payment of water
bills. On January 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a document entitled “Proposed Voir Dire,” that
included Plaintiffs’ requested voir dire questions and Plaintiffs’ “Statement of the Case.”
Plaintiffs requested an extension of time to submit these documents, citing good cause for
Plaintiffs Counsel’s personal emergency. The Court will grant the extension, finding good cause.
However, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ submission is defective. While Plaintiffs’

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

proposed voir dire questions are acceptable, the Court cannot accept Plaintiffs’ Statement of the
Case. The Joint Pretrial Order specifically requires a “joint agreed summary of the case.” See
Doc. No. 77, p. 23. Thus, Plaintiffs’ document “Proposed Voir Dire” (Doc. No. 101) will be
stricken from the docket. By 4:00 p.m. today, Monday, January 28, 2019, Plaintiffs may resubmit
their proposed voir dire questions in a separate document, and the Parties are ordered to submit a
joint agreed summary of the case.
///

1

ORDER

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4
5

the case is GRANTED;
2.

6
7

Plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time to file proposed voir dire and a statement of

Plaintiffs’ document entitled “Proposed Voir Dire” (Doc. No. 101) is stricken from the
docket;

3.

By 4:00p.m. today, January 28, 2019;

8

a. Plaintiffs may refile their proposed voir dire questions as a separate document; and

9

b. The parties shall submit a joint statement of the case, pursuant to the Pretrial Order

10

(Doc. No. 77).

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2019
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2