Gilmore et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.,
Filing
248
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 08/02/11 ORDERING that the parties are directed to file a true joint pretrial statement by 08/08/11, signed by all trial counsel, representing that counsel have in fact conferred about all disputed facts and evidentiary issues. Motions in limine are due no later than 5 p.m. on 08/12/11, with oppositions due no later than 5 p.m. on 08/17/11. A hearing on the motions in limine will be held on Friday, 08/19/11 at 2:00 p.m. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JEREMY GILMORE AND
DANA GILMORE,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
13
Civ. No. S-09-2180 KJM DAD
vs.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY,
ORDER
14
Defendant.
15
/
16
This case was on calendar on August 3, 2011 for final pretrial conference. Larry
17
Lockshin appeared for plaintiffs; Michael Johnson and Brian Plummer appeared for defendants.
18
The court directed counsel to file the joint pretrial statement required by Local Rule 282 and this
19
court’s scheduling order. On July 29, 2011, counsel filed a document entitled “Joint Pre-Trial
20
Statement,” which included several redlined sections and other editing marks. ECF No. 244. On
21
August 1, 2011, counsel filed another document entitled “Joint Pre-Trial Statement.” The
22
contents of both documents suggest that counsel have not actually conferred about the
23
evidentiary issues or the motions in limine, to narrow the disputes the court must resolve prior to
24
trial. For example, in the most recent statement, plaintiffs contend that defendant should be
25
precluded from introducing Union Pacific’s industry wide safety statistics, which were attached
26
as exhibits to George Day’s deposition. ECF No. 247 at 9 ¶ 16. A review of UP’s exhibit list
1
1
does not clearly show its intent to offer this exhibit. But see ECF No. 247 at 80 ¶ 123. In
2
addition, plaintiffs object to Union Pacific’s playing music during trial, yet there is no indication
3
that UP contemplates any such performance. ECF No. 247 at 9 ¶ 14. In sum, the court cannot
4
determine whether the evidentiary issues listed are actually disputed and thus have a place in the
5
pretrial order. Moreover, the pretrial statement is not signed by UP’s trial attorneys as it must
6
be.
7
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
8
1. The parties are directed to file a true joint pretrial statement, signed by all trial
9
counsel, representing at the beginning of the statement that counsel have in fact conferred about
10
all disputed facts and evidentiary issues, with this statement to be filed no later than 5 p.m. on
11
August 8, 2011.
12
2. Motions in limine identified in the joint statement required in paragraph 1
13
above will be due no later than 5 p.m. on August 12, 2011, with oppositions due no later than 5
14
p.m. on August 17, 2011.
15
3. A hearing on the motions in limine will be held on Friday, August 19, 2011 at
16
2:00 p.m.
17
DATED: August 2, 2011.
18
19
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
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?