United States of America v. Sierra Pacific Industries et al

Filing 464

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/11/2012 ORDERING that the Court will hear the Daubert Motions and the Motions in Limine at the Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/14/2012; ORDERING that Daubert Motions and Motions in Limine are to be f iled by 5/24/2012, Oppositions due by 6/7/2012; ORDERING that Plaintiff's Daubert Motion be filed in one document consisting of an introduction (not to exceed 3 pages), with no more than 3 pages per motion; ORDERING that Defendant's Joint O pposition, if any, consist of an introduction (not to exceed 3 pages), with no more than 3 pages per opposition; ORDERING that the Defendant's Daubert Motion be filed jointly, consisting of an introduction (not to exceed 3 pages), with no more t han 3 pages per Motion; ORDERING that Plaintiff's Opposition, if any, consist of an introduction (not to exceed 3 pages), with no more than 3 pages per opposition; ORDERING each defendant to file any remaining separate Daubert Motions omitting a n introduction, with no more than 3 pages per motion; ORDERING that Plaintiff's Oppositions to the separate Daubert Motions omit an introduction, with no more than 3 pages per motion opposed; ORDERING that Plaintiff's Motions in Limine be f iled in one document with no more than 3 pages per motion; ORDERING that Defendant's Joint Opposition, if any, be filed in 1 document with no more than 3 pages per motion opposed; ORDERING that the Defendants' Motions in Limine be filed joi ntly with no more than 3 pages per Motion; ORDERING that Plaintiff's Opposition, if any, be filed in 1 document with no more than 3 pages per motion opposed; ORDERING each defendant to file any remaining separate Motions in Limine in 1 document with no more than 3 pages per motion; ORDERING that Plaintiff's Oppositions to the separate Motions in Limine be filed in 1 document with no more than 3 pages per motion opposed; ORDERING that each motion and opposition filed be particularized and not boilerplate. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

11

NO. CIV S-09-2445 KJM-EFB

v.

12
13

SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES; et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.
/

15
16

Plaintiff filed a proposal regarding the format, page limits, and briefing schedule

17

for Daubert motions and motions in limine on May 4, 2012. (ECF 460.) Defendants filed their

18

response and counter-proposal on May 8, 2012. (ECF 462.)
Having considered the parties’ proposals, and taking into account the court’s

19
20

inherent power to control its docket, Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404

21

(9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations, citations, and alterations omitted), the court ORDERS as

22

follows:
1)

23

The court will hear the parties’ Daubert motions and motions in limine, to the

24

extent required after meet and confer sessions, at the final pre-trial conference

25

scheduled for June 14, 2012.

26

/////
1

1

2)

Daubert motions and motions in limine shall be filed no later than May 24, 2012.

2

Oppositions, if any, shall be filed no later than June 7, 2012. All filings are

3

subject to the parameters that follow. No replies shall be filed or entertained

4

unless otherwise ordered by the court. As a general rule, the parties’ brief

5

arguments at hearing shall serve as their replies.

6

3)

Plaintiff shall file its Daubert motions in one document consisting of an

7

introduction that does not exceed three (3) pages, with no more than three (3)

8

pages per motion. Defendants shall file a joint opposition, if any, consisting of an

9

introduction that does not exceed three (3) pages, with no more than three (3)

10

pages per opposition. The parties shall assume that the court is familiar with

11

Daubert generally, without the need to brief the basic Daubert standard.

12

4)

The court anticipates potential duplication among defendants’ Daubert motions.

13

Accordingly, defendants shall file joint Daubert motions in one document

14

consisting of an introduction that does not exceed three (3) pages, with no more

15

than three (3) pages per motion. Plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any,

16

consisting of an introduction that does not exceed three (3) pages, with no more

17

than three (3) pages per opposition. Each defendant1 shall then file any

18

remaining, separate Daubert motions in one document per defendant, omitting an

19

introduction and allocating no more than three (3) pages per motion. Plaintiff

20

shall file oppositions, if any, to each individual defendant’s separate Daubert

21

motions in one document, omitting an introduction and allocating no more than

22

three (3) pages per motion opposed. Again, the parties shall assume that the

23

/////

24
25
26

1

Howell’s Forest Harvesting Co. and Eunice E. Howell are considered to be one
defendant for purposes of this order. The landowner defendants are also considered to be one
defendant for purposes of this order.
2

1

court is familiar with Daubert generally, without the need to brief the basic

2

Daubert standard.

3

5)

Plaintiff shall file its motions in limine in one document, allocating no more than

4

three (3) pages per motion. Defendants shall file a joint opposition, if any, in one

5

document, allocating no more than three (3) pages per motion opposed.

6

6)

The court anticipates potential duplication among defendants’ motions in limine.

7

Accordingly, defendants shall file joint motions in limine in one document,

8

allocating no more than three (3) pages per motion. Plaintiff shall file an

9

opposition, if any, in one document, allocating no more than three (3) pages per

10

motion opposed. Each defendant shall then file any remaining, separate motions

11

in limine in one document per defendant, allocating no more than three (3) pages

12

per motion. Plaintiff shall file oppositions, if any, to individual defendant’s

13

motions in limine in one document, allocating no more than three (3) pages per

14

motion opposed.

15

7)

Each motion and opposition filed shall be particularized to this case and not

16

merely boilerplate from counsel’s store of standardized Daubert and in limine

17

motions. Moreover, each motion and opposition shall raise only those issues that

18

counsel in good faith determines must be raised in Daubert motions and in limine

19

and shall not raise issues that can and should be deferred until trial.

20

All counsel are cautioned that failure to comply with any of the above shall result

21

in the court’s issuing an order to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed and an

22

expedited show cause hearing.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 11, 2012.

25
26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3