Hicks v. Lowe's HIW, Inc.

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/14/14 ORDERING that Jury Trial is CONFIRMED for 6/9/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Each party is granted fourteen days from the date of this order to file objections to the same. If no objections are filed, the order will become final without further order of this Court.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CARDTE HICKS,

No. 2:12-CV-01883-KJM-KJN
Plaintiff,

13
v.
14
15

ORDER
LOWE’S HIW, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

On March 20, 2014, the court conducted a final pretrial conference. Robert

20

Masuda appeared for Cardte Hicks (“plaintiff”), and Charles May appeared for Lowe’s Home

21

Centers, LLC (“defendant”). After hearing, and good cause appearing, the court makes the

22

following findings and orders:

23

JURISDICTION/VENUE

24

Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441(b). Venue is proper as

25

the underlying events occurred in the Eastern District. Jurisdiction and venue are not contested.

26

JURY/NON-JURY

27
28

Both parties request a jury.
/////
1

1
2
3
4
5

UNDISPUTED FACTS
The parties have agreed to the following undisputed facts:
1. On November 8, 2011, plaintiff was shopping at defendant’s retail store located in West
Sacramento, California.
2. While plaintiff was in the checkout line waiting to purchase two pieces of lumber, a

6

Lowe’s cashier attempted to lift the boards to find the item’s price tag, causing one of

7

the boards to strike plaintiff’s right shoulder.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES
The parties dispute the following factual issues:
1. Plaintiff alleges she suffered serious injuries resulting from the subject incident, which
she attributes to defendant’s negligence.
2. Defendant disputes causation, the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries and damages,
including the amount of adjusted medical expenses.
SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION
A. Plaintiff
Plaintiff is fifty-five years old. As a result of the subject incident, plaintiff

17

sustained injury to her right shoulder. Following the incident, she visited her primary care

18

physician, Dr. Charles McCrory, M.D., who monitored her condition and administered physical

19

therapy treatment within his office. Plaintiff’s right shoulder pain did not subside.

20

Dr. McCrory referred plaintiff to an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Amir Jamali,

21

M.D. A magnetic resonance imaging scan of plaintiff’s right shoulder was taken on November

22

29, 2011, revealing a tear and acromial fracture. On April 4, 2012, Dr. Jamali performed a

23

right shoulder arthroscopy, open rotator cuff repair, repair of nonunion of acromion and bicep

24

tenodesis. Plaintiff underwent physical therapy as part of her post-surgery rehabilitative

25

treatment, but her pain did not subside. On December 21, 2012, Dr. Jamali performed another

26

arthroscopic surgery of her right shoulder and removed hardware in place from her initial

27

surgery. At this time, a small saw was also used to flatten evident scar tissue. Plaintiff

28

continued to experience pain after the second surgery.
2

1

She relocated to Southern California and began treatment with Kaiser. Her

2

primary care doctor at Kaiser referred her to physical therapy, which offered little relief, and an

3

orthopedic specialist, Dr. Bryan Wiley, M.D. Dr. Wiley planned to perform a third surgery on

4

March 31, 2014 to plaintiff’s right shoulder because she continues to experience pain.

5
6

Following is a list of Plaintiff’s medical providers and corresponding costs for
treatment:

7

Charles McCrory, D.C., M.D.; 300 Harding Boulevard, Suite 213, Roseville, CA
95678, [phone];
Type of Treatment: Primary care and follow-up treatment
Dates of Service: 11/15/11-3/7/12
Charges to date: $2,105.00

8
9
10
11

Radiological Associates of Sacramento, 1880 Sierra Gardens Drive, Suite 200,
Roseville, CA 95661
Type of Treatment: X-rays and MRI of right shoulder
Dates of Service: 11/19/11; 11/29/11, 2/22/12, 5/29/12, 11/16/12
Charges to date: $3,898.33

12
13
14

Amir Jamali, M.D., 2825 J Street, Suite 440, Sacramento, CA 95816,
Type of Treatment: Right shoulder arthroscopy, open rotator cuff repair, repair of
nonunion of acromion, biceps tenodesis, follow-up treatment, removal of hardware
in right shoulder; injections
Dates of Service: 1/10/12, 2/7/12; 3/15/12; 4/4/12; 4/10/12; 4/26/12; 5/10/12;
5/31/12; 12/21/12 (right shoulder arthroscopy, removal of hardware); 12/5/13
Charges to Date: $21,655.00

15
16
17
18
19

Central Anesthesia Service Exchange; P.O. Box 660910, Sacramento, CA 95866
Type of Treatment: Anesthesiology for Surgery
Dates of Service: 4/4/12, 12/21/12
Charges to Date: $4,140.00

20
21
22
23

Sutter Alhambra Surgery Center; 1201 Alhambra Boulevard, Suite 110,
Sacramento, CA 95816
Type of Treatment: Surgery Facility
Date of Treatment: 4/4/12
Charges to Date: $43,875.00

24
25
26
27

/////

28

/////
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Pacific Medical, Inc.; P.O. Box 149, Tracy, CA 95378;
Type of Treatment: shoulder sling
Date of Service: 4/4/12;
Charges to date: $195.00
Janice Daniels, PT; 5207 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819;
Type of Treatment: Physical Therapy
Dates of Treatment: 5/2/12-7/12/12;
Charges to Date: $2,505.00
MD Stat
Type of Treatment: Pre-surgery labwork
Date of Service: 11/16/12
Charges to Date: $469.50
Quest Diagnostics
Type of Treatment: Pre-surgery labwork
Date of Service: 12/7/12
Charges to date: $246.34
Sutter General Hospital, 2801 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95816;
Type of Treatment: facility for right shoulder arthroscopy, possible rotator cuff
repair, and removal of hardware;
Date of Service: 12/21/12
Charges to Date: $31,594.32
Diagnostic Pathology Medical Group, 3301 C Street, Suite 200-E, Sacramento,
CA 95816
Type of Treatment: Anatomic Pathology Report of Hardware from Right Shoulder
Date of Service: 12/21/12
Charges to Date: $171.00
Kaiser, 10850 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-4833;
Type of Treatment: follow-up care and physical therapy; orthopedic consultation
and future surgery of right shoulder
Dates of service and charges to date are currently being verified.
B. Defendant
Defendant contends that plaintiff suffered from a preexisting medical condition,

26

the claimed injuries were not caused by the subject incident, the claimed medical bills were

27

excessive and/or not caused by the incident and adjusted downward by plaintiff’s healthcare

28
4

1

providers and insurance carrier, plaintiff failed to mitigate damages and there are no facts to

2

support any of plaintiff’s claims for future medical expenses.

3

DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

4

Neither party reasonably anticipates a dispute concerning admissibility of live

5

and deposition testimony, physical and demonstrative evidence and the use of special

6

technology at trial, including computer animation, video discs and/or other high technology.

7
8

Both parties anticipate filing several motions in limine.
AGREED STATEMENTS
None.

9
10

RELIEF SOUGHT

11

Plaintiff claims current total medical expenses exceeding $110,000. At the time

12

of the final pretrial conference, she was awaiting the scheduling of an additional surgery to her

13

right shoulder, to take place following recovery from a knee surgery unrelated to the instant

14

litigation. This amount may be updated prior to trial as plaintiff is currently still being treated

15

for injuries resulting from this accident. Based on the cost of her two prior shoulder surgeries,

16

it is anticipated that the cost of plaintiff’s upcoming surgery will be approximately $35,000 to

17

$45,000, plus the cost of rehabilitative therapy.
Defendant contends that plaintiff’s shoulder surgeries are not causally connected

18
19

to injuries, if any, allegedly sustained as a result of the subject incident. In addition, defendant

20

disputes the net amount of plaintiff’s claimed medical charges.

21

POINTS OF LAW

22

A. Plaintiff
Plaintiff’s legal theories for recovery are based upon negligence. Plaintiff

23
24

contends that defendant’s employee was negligent in causing plaintiff’s injury while acting

25

within the course and scope of his employment with defendant and that defendant is thereby

26

liable.

27

/////

28

/////
5

1

B. Defendant

2

Defendant contends that plaintiff suffered from a pre-existing medical condition,

3

plaintiff’s claimed injuries were not caused by the subject incident, the claimed medical bills

4

were excessive and/or were not caused by the accident (and, in any event, were adjusted down

5

by plaintiff’s healthcare providers and her health insurance carrier), plaintiff failed to mitigate

6

her damages and that there are no facts to support any of plaintiff’s claims for future medical

7

expenses.

8

ABANDONED ISSUES
Plaintiff abandons no issues.

9

Defendant abandons the following affirmative defenses raised in its answer:

10
11

(1) fourth affirmative defense: failure to state a cause of action; (2) fifth affirmative defense:

12

running of the applicable statute of limitations; and (3) sixth affirmative defense: assumption of

13

the risk.

14

WITNESSES

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

Plaintiff anticipates calling the following witnesses:
A. Lay Witnesses
1. Cardte Hicks: Plaintiff will testify about how the incident occurred and her
injuries.
2. Joel Valenzuela: He is the former employee of defendant who dropped the
lumber on plaintiff and will testify about how the incident occurred.
3. Baldur Roikjer: She was with the plaintiff at the time of the incident and will
testify to what she witnessed.
4. Chantel Phillips: She is an employee of defendant who investigated the incident
and will testify about the incident.
5. Victoria Shikaloff: She is a former employee of defendant who investigated the
incident and will testify about the incident.
6. Robert Gonsalves: He is an employee of defendant who investigated the incident
and will testify about the incident.
6

1

7. Charles McCrory, M.D.: He will testify about the treatment he provided

2

plaintiff.

3

8. Janice Daniels, P.T.: She will testify about the treatment she provided plaintiff.

4

9. Bryan Vincent Wiley, M.D.: He will testify about the treatment he provided

5

plaintiff.

6

10. Susan Yoomie Lee, M.D.: She will testify about the treatments she provided

7

plaintiff.

8

11. Mohammed Namazian, D.O.: He will testify about the treatment he provided

9

plaintiff.

10

12. Michael Seung Oh, M.D.: He will testify about the treatment he provided

11

plaintiff.

12

13. Ronald Welch, P.T.: He will testify about the treatment he provided plaintiff.

13

B. Expert Witnesses

14

1. Amir Jamali, M.D.: He will testify about his treatment of plaintiff, her injuries

15

and the relationship between the incident and her injuries.

16

Defendant anticipates calling the following witnesses:

17

A. Lay Witnesses:

18

1. Chantel Phillips: She will testify about facts giving rise to the subject incident.

19

2. Robert Gonsalves: He will testify about facts giving rise to the subject incident.

20

3. Joel Valenzuela: He will testify about facts giving rise to the subject incident.

21

4. Victoria Shikaloff: She will testify about facts giving rise to the subject incident.

22

B. Expert Witnesses:

23

1. Geoffrey M. Miller, M.D.: He will testify about issues of causation, damages,

24

prognosis, diagnosis, and reasonableness and necessity of all prior, current, and

25

future medical care and expenses.

26

Each party may call any witness designated by the other.

27

/////

28

/////
7

1
2

A. The court will not permit any other witness to testify unless:
1. The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the

3

purpose of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably

4

anticipated at the pretrial conference; or

5

2. The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference, and the

6

proffering party makes the showing required in subsection B.

7

B. Upon the post-pretrial discovery of any witness that a party wishes to present

8

at trial, the party shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the

9

existence of the unlisted witnesses so that the court may consider whether

10

the witnesses shall be permitted to testify at trial. The witnesses will not be

11

permitted unless:

12
13
14
15

1. The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the
discovery cutoff;
2. The court and opposing witnesses were promptly notified upon
discovery of the witness; and

16

3. If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; or

17

4. If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s

18
19
20

testimony was provided the opposing parties.
EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES
Plaintiff will present the following exhibits:

21

1. Charles McCrory, D.C., M.D. – Medical Records

22

2. Charles McCrory, D.C., M.D. – Billing Records

23

3. Radiological Associates of Sacramento – Medical Records

24

4. Radiological Associates of Sacramento – Billing Records

25

5. Central Anesthesia Service Exchange – Billing Records

26

6. Sutter Alhambra Surgery Center – Medical Records

27

7. Sutter Alhambra Surgery Center – Billing Records

28

8. Pacific Medical, Inc. – Billing Records
8

1

9. Janice Daniels, PT – Medical Records

2

10. Janice Daniels, PT – Billing Records

3

11. MD Stat – Medical Records

4

12. MD Stat – Billing Records

5

13. Quest Diagnostics – Medical Records

6

14. Quest Diagnostics – Billing Records

7

15. Sutter General Hospital – Medical Records

8

16. Sutter General Hospital – Billing Records

9

17. Diagnostic Pathology Medical Group – Medical Records

10

18. Diagnostic Pathology Medical Group – Billing Records

11

19. Kaiser - Medical Records

12

20. Kaiser - Billing Records

13

21. Chart depicting Plaintiff’s Medical Billing Amounts

14

22. Lowe’s Surveillance Video

15

23. 2x4 piece of lumber

16

25. Deposition of Cardte Hicks

17

26. Deposition of Joel Valenzuela

18

27. Deposition of Chantel Phillips

19

28. Deposition of Victoria Shikaloff

20

29. Deposition of Robert Gonsalves

21

30. Deposition of Amir Jamali, M.D.

22

Defendant will present the following exhibits:

23

A. Plaintiff’s subpoenaed medical and billing records from Amir Jamali, M.D.

24

B. Plaintiff’s subpoenaed medical and billing records from Janice Daniels, PT.

25

C. Plaintiff’s subpoenaed medical and billing records from Charles McCrory, D.C.

26

D. Plaintiff’s subpoenaed medical and billing records from Kaiser Permanente Hospital.

27

E. Plaintiff’s subpoenaed medical and billing records from Pacific Medical, Inc.

28
9

1

F. Plaintiff’s subpoenaed medical and billing records from Radiological Associates of

2

Sacramento.

3

G. Plaintiff’s subpoenaed medical and billing records from Sutter Hospital.

4

H. Plaintiff’s subpoenaed medical and billing records from Sutter Alhambra Surgery

5

Center.

6

I. Plaintiff’s subpoenaed medical and billing records from Sutter Physician Services.

7

J. Plaintiff’s subpoenaed medical and billing records from Central Anesthesia Service

8

Exchange.

9

K. Plaintiff’s subpoenaed medical and billing records from MD Stat Urgent Care.

10

L. Lowe’s Interrogatories (Set One) to Plaintiff Cardte Hicks.

11

M. Plaintiff’s responses to defendant’s Interrogatories (Set One)

12

N. Lowe’s Request For Production of Documents (Set One) to plaintiff.

13

O. Plaintiff’s responses to defendant’s Request For Production of Documents (Set One).

14

P. Dr. Geoffrey Miller’s Initial Orthopedic Evaluation Report of plaintiff, dated

15

September 21, 2013.

16

Q. Dr. Geoffrey Miller’s Report of Review of plaintiff’s medical records, dated

17

September 21, 2013.

18

R. Dr. Geoffrey Miller’s Report of Supplemental Review of plaintiff’s medical records,

19

dated September 25, 2013.

20

S. Dr. Geoffrey Miller’s Report of Supplemental Review of plaintiff’s medical records,

21

dated January 27, 2014.

22

T. Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Geoffrey Miller.

23

U. Lowe’s Incident Report dated November 8, 2011.

24

V. Written Statement by Former Lowe’s Employee Joel Valenzuela dated November 11,

25

2011.

26

W. Defendant’s Surveillance Video depicting the subject incident

27

/////

28

/////
10

1

The court encourages the parties to generate a joint exhibit list to the extent

2

possible. Joint exhibits shall be identified as JX and listed numerically (e.g., JX-1, JX-2).

3

All exhibits must be premarked.

4

The parties must prepare exhibit binders for use by the court at trial, with a side

5

tab identifying each exhibit in accordance with the specifications above. Each binder shall

6

have an identification label on the front and spine.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

The parties must exchange exhibits no later than twenty-eight days before trial.
Any objections to exhibits are due no later than fourteen days before trial.
A. The court will not admit exhibits other than those identified on the exhibit lists
referenced above unless:
1. The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates the exhibit is for the purpose of
rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably anticipated; or
2. The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the proffering
party makes the showing required in section B, below.

15

B. Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall promptly inform

16

the court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits so that the court may

17

consider their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received unless the

18

proffering party demonstrates:

19

1. The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered earlier;

20

2. The court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their existence;

21

and

22

3. The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically possible) to

23

the opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied the proffering party must

24

show that it has made the exhibits reasonably available for inspection by the

25

opposing parties.

26

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

27
28

Counsel must lodge the sealed original copy of any deposition transcript to be
used at trial with the Clerk of the Court no later than fourteen days before trial.
11

1
2

FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS
Plaintiff has not produced her updated medical records. Plaintiff’s retained

3

expert Dr. Amir Jamali testified on December 19, 2013 that plaintiff had an MRI taken of her

4

right shoulder on November 19, 2013. Dr. Jamali reviewed the MRI at his examination of

5

plaintiff on December 5, 2013 and administered a steroid injection. To date, neither the MRI

6

nor Dr. Jamali’s records from December have been produced by plaintiff.

7

In plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial, filed on January 24, 2014, plaintiff

8

indicated that she obtained an evaluation and treatment related to her third shoulder surgery on

9

January 13, 2014 from Dr. Bryan Wiley. No records from this treatment have been produced.

10

Defendant takes the position it requires an opportunity to review and evaluate

11

the above-referenced records that have not been produced. Plaintiff believes she has met the

12

requirement of the duty to disclose pursuant to Rule 26(e).

13

Defense counsel has met and conferred with plaintiff’s counsel regarding these

14

unproduced records. If no resolution can be achieved, defendant reserves its right to file

15

pretrial motions with the court.

16

Plaintiff has moved to depose defendant’s expert, Dr. Geoffrey Miller. This

17

motion is addressed in a separate order.

18

STIPULATIONS

19

The parties have entered into the following stipulations:

20

1. At the time of the subject incident, Joel Valenzuela was defendant’s

21

employee whose actions caused a 2 x 4 piece of lumber to fall upon plaintiff. At the time of the

22

subject incident, Joel Valenzuela was acting within the scope of his employment.

23

2. The video recording of the subject incident, provided by defendant, will be

24

considered genuine at time of trial, thereby meeting the authentication requirements of the

25

Federal Rules of Evidence.

26

AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS

27
28

None. The parties request the dismissal of any unserved defendants.
Accordingly, any remaining Doe defendants are dismissed.
12

1

SETTLEMENT

2

The parties attended a settlement conference on April 2, 2014 with the

3

Honorable Kendall J. Newman but did not settle.

4

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

5
6

The parties anticipate filing the following motions in limine:
A. Plaintiff1

7

1. Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude plaintiff’s prior convictions.

8

2. Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude plaintiff’s financial history.

9

B. Defendant

10

1. Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude any actual or potential dollar amount of

11

damages from being mentioned to the jury during voir dire.

12

2. Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude all witnesses from the courtroom unless

13

testifying.

14

3. Defendant’s motion in limine to preclude reference to the size of the firm or firm

15
locations of defendant’s counsel.

16

4. Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude any and all reference to defendant’s

17

insurance.

18

5. Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude all evidence concerning settlement

19

discussions at the time of trial.

20

6. Defendant’s motion in limine to bar plaintiff from recovering medical specials

21
22

in excess of net medical bills.

23

7. Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude plaintiff’s records and films from 2013

24

and 2014 not produced pursuant to Rule 26(e).

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude defendant’s expert testimony has previously
been denied.
13

1

Unless it notifies the parties otherwise, the court will hear these motions on the

2

first day of trial. Motions are due three weeks before the date of trial; oppositions are due

3

two weeks before trial; replies are due one week before trial. Failure to comply with Local

4

Rule 230(c) may be deemed consent to the motion, and the court may dispose of the motion

5

summarily. Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652–53 (9th Cir. 1994).

6

Each pretrial evidentiary ruling is made without prejudice and is subject to

7

proper renewal, in whole or in part, during trial. If a party wishes to contest a pretrial ruling, it

8

must do so through a proper motion or objection, or otherwise forfeit appeal on such grounds.

9

See FED. R. EVID. 103(a); Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir.

10

2001) (“Where a district court makes a tentative in limine ruling excluding evidence, the

11

exclusion of that evidence may only be challenged on appeal if the aggrieved party attempts to

12

offer such evidence at trial.”) (internal alteration, citation and quotation marks omitted). In

13

addition, challenges to expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

14

509 U.S. 579 (1993), are denied without prejudice. Should a party wish to renew a Daubert

15

challenge at trial, it should alert the court, at which point the court may grant limited voir dire

16

before such expert may be called to testify.

17

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The court approves the parties’ proposed statement of the case to be read to the

18
19

jury at the beginning of trial:

20

This case involves an incident that occurred at defendant Lowe’s Home Centers,

21

LLC’s retail store located in West Sacramento, California on November 8, 2011. On that date,

22

plaintiff was shopping at Defendant’s store. Plaintiff stood in the check-out line waiting to

23

purchase two pieces of lumber. As the attending Lowe’s cashier attempted to lift the boards to

24

find the item’s price tag, one of the boards fell and struck Plaintiff on the right shoulder.

25

Plaintiff claims that she suffered serious injuries, which she attributes to Defendant’s

26

negligence. Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC denies negligence and disputes the nature

27

and extent of the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiff.

28

/////
14

1
2
3
4

SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES
None.
IMPARTIAL EXPERTS/LIMITATION OF EXPERTS
The parties do not request an appointment by the court of impartial expert

5

witnesses or any court orders limiting the number of expert witnesses.

6

ATTORNEYS' FEES

7
8

Attorneys’ fees are not being requested by the parties.
ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL/TRIAL DATE

9

Jury trial, estimated at five days, is confirmed for June 9, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in

10

Courtroom Three before the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller. The court will review with the

11

parties the actual time needed for trial on the morning of June 9th.

12

PROPOSED JURY VOIR DIRE AND PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

13
14
15

The parties shall file any proposed jury voir dire seven days before trial. Each
party will be limited to ten minutes of jury voir dire, following the court’s own voir dire.
The court directs counsel to meet and confer in an attempt to generate a joint set

16

of jury instructions and verdicts. The parties shall file any such joint set of instructions

17

fourteen days before trial, identified as “Jury Instructions and Verdicts Without Objection.” To

18

the extent the parties are unable to agree on all or some instructions and verdicts, their

19

respective proposed instructions are due fourteen days before trial.

20

Counsel shall email a copy of all proposed jury instructions and verdicts,

21

whether agreed or disputed, as a word processable document to [e-mail]

22

no later than fourteen days before trial; all blanks in form instructions should be completed and

23

all brackets removed.

24

Objections to proposed jury instructions must be filed seven days before trial;

25

each objection shall identify the challenged instruction and shall provide a concise explanation

26

of the basis for the objection along with citation of authority. When applicable, the objecting

27

party shall submit an alternative proposed instruction on the issue or identify which of his or

28

her own proposed instructions covers the subject.
15

1

MISCELLANEOUS

2
3

Trial briefs are due seven days before trial.
OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER

4

Each party is granted fourteen days from the date of this order to file objections

5

to the same. If no objections are filed, the order will become final without further order of this

6

court.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 14, 2014.

9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16