Celestine v. FCA US LLC

Filing 54

PRETRIAL ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/28/2019. Motions in Limine: Filed by 6/14/2019; Opposition by 6/21/2019; Motion Hearing set for 7/1/2019 at 10:30 AM in Bakersfield, 510 19th Street before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Trial submissions due by 7/12/2019. Jury Trial: 7/15/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY CELESTINE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
FCA US LLC,

15

Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00597 JLT
PRETRIAL ORDER
Deadlines:
Motions in Limine Filing: 6/14/2019
Oppositions to Motions in Limine: 6/21/2019
Hearing on Motions in Limine:
7/1/2019 at 10:30 a.m
Trial Submissions: 7/12/2019
Jury trial: July 15, 2019 at 8:30 a.m., 3-4 days

18

Mr. Celestine purchased a 2012 Dodge Durango in April 2012, which he contends had serious

19

defects and nonconformities to warranty. He contends FCA UC LLC manufactured the vehicle and is

20

liable for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and fraudulent inducement under

21

California law.

22

A.

23

JURISDICTION/ VENUE
This Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In addition,

24

the events that gave rise to this action occurred in Elk Grove, California. Accordingly, the parties

25

agree venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28

26

U.S.C. § 1391.

27

B.

28

JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff timely demanded a jury trial in this matter.
1

1

C.

UNDISPUTED FACTS

2

1.

3

Durnago.

4

2.

5

3.

10

The subject vehicle was covered by express written warranties issued by FCA US LLC,

including the “Basic Limited Warranty” and the “Powertrain Limited Warranty.”
4.

8
9

Plaintiff purchased a new 2012 Dodge Durango (the “Durango” or the “subject

vehicle”) on April 12, 2012, from Premier Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram (“Premier CJDR”).

6
7

FCA US LLC is a manufacturer of Dodge vehicles, including the 2012 Dodge

The “Basic Limited Warranty” covered all components of the subject vehicle against

defects in materials or workmanship for a period of three years or 36,000 miles, whichever came first,
calculated from the date of delivery of the subject vehicle to Plaintiff.
5.

11

The “Powertrain Limited Warranty” covered specified engine, transmission, and

12

drivetrain components of the subject vehicle for a period of five years or 100,000 miles, whichever

13

came first, calculated from the date of delivery of the subject vehicle to Plaintiff.
6.

14
15

class action lawsuit, Velasco, et al. v. Chrysler Group, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-08080.
7.

16
17
18

Plaintiff timely submitted a request for exclusion from the proposed settlement of a

D.

Premier CJDR is Defendant’s authorized repair facility.

DISPUTED FACTS
1.

Whether the subject vehicle’s problems, or any of them, that were presented to Premier

19

CJDR, Alhambra Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (“Alhambra CDJR”), and Puente Hills Chrysler Dodge

20

Jeep Ram (“Puente Hills CDJR”) for diagnosis and repair are “nonconformities” (e.g., did they

21

substantially impair the vehicle’s use, value or safety).

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2.

Whether FCA US LLC or its authorized repair facilities were given a “reasonable number

of opportunities” to repair the subject vehicle to match its express warranty(ies).
3.

Whether FCA US LLC or its authorized repair facility(ies) failed to repair the subject

vehicle to match the express warranty after a reasonable number of opportunities.
4.

Whether, if FCA US failed to repair the subject vehicle after a reasonable number of

opportunities, FCA US LLC failed to promptly replace or repurchase the subject vehicle.
5.

Whether Plaintiff placed FCA US LLC on notice of a potential claim for the repurchase
2

1

or replacement of the subject vehicle.

2

6.

Whether any failure to repurchase or replace the subject vehicle was willful.

3

7.

Whether FCA US LLC maintains an informal dispute resolution program meeting the

4

requirements for a “qualified alternative dispute resolution program” including:

5

(1) Whether the program complies with the minimum requirements of the Federal Trade

6

Commission for informal dispute settlement procedures as set forth in Part 703 of Title 16 of the Code

7

of Federal Regulations, as those regulations read on January 1, 1987.

8

(2) Whether the program takes into account, in rendering decisions, all legal and

9

equitable factors, including, but not limited to, the written warranty, the rights and remedies conferred

10

in regulations of the Federal Trade Commission contained in Part 703 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal

11

Regulations as those regulations read on January 1, 1987, Division 2 (commencing with Section 2101)

12

of the Commercial Code, this chapter, and any other equitable considerations appropriate in the

13

circumstances.

14

(3) Whether the program maintains certification by the Department of Consumer Affairs

15

pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 472) of Division 1 of the Business and Professions

16

Code.

17

8.

Whether the Durango was sold with a defective Totally Integrated Power Module

18

9.

Whether FCA US LLC was aware that the TIPM-7 in Plaintiff’s subject vehicle was

19
20

defective before the sale of the vehicle.
10.

Whether National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) investigations

21

and recalls, FCA US LLC’s Technical Service Bulletins (“TSBs”), and/or FCA US LLC’s voluntary

22

recall notices demonstrate that FCA US LLC had superior and exclusive knowledge of the defects in

23

the TIPM-7 found in the subject vehicle.

24
25
26
27
28

11.

Whether pre-release testing performed on vehicles equipped with the TIPM 7,

demonstrate FCA US LLC’s longstanding knowledge of TIPM-7 defects.
12.

Whether FCA US LLC disclosed information concerning TIPM-7 defects to Plaintiff

before he purchased the subject vehicle.
13.

Whether FCA US LLC instructed its authorized repair facilities to disclose the TIPM
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

defect to consumers or to Plaintiff.
14.

Whether Plaintiff did not know of the TIPM defects when he purchased the subject

vehicle or brought it to authorized repair facilities for diagnosis or repair.
15.

Whether Plaintiff reasonably relied on FCA US LLC’s representations or omissions

about defects in vehicles with the TIPM 7, like the subject vehicle.
16.

Whether FCA US LLC concealed from Plaintiff a known defect or defects related to the

TIPM-7.
17.

Whether Plaintiff incurred any harm or damages as a result of any alleged concealment

of defects related to the TIPM-7.
18.

Plaintiff’s total damages, which may include:

11

(1)

The “total amount paid and payable” for the subject vehicle;

12

(2)

The extent and value of any mileage offset applicable to a restitution remedy

13

under the Song-Beverly Act, calculated as follows: “The amount directly attributable to use by the buyer

14

shall be determined by multiplying the actual price of the new motor vehicle paid or payable by the

15

buyer, including any charges for transportation and manufacturer installed options, by a fraction having

16

as its denominator 120,000 and having as its numerator the number of miles traveled by the new motor

17

vehicle prior to the time the buyer first delivered the vehicle to the manufacturer or distributor, or its

18

authorized service and repair facility for correction of the problem that gave rise to the nonconformity.”
(3)

19

The total amount of incidental damages suffered by Plaintiff, including “expenses

20

reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation and care and custody of goods” as defined in

21

Commercial Code section 2715.

22

(4)

The total amount of consequential damages suffered by Plaintiff, “including, but

23

not limited to, reasonable repair, towing, and rental car costs actually incurred” (Civil Code §

24

1793.2(d)(2)(A)) and “any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the

25

seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by

26

cover or otherwise; and [i]njury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of

27

warranty” (Comm. Code § 2715(2)).

28

19.

Whether concealment of TIPM 7 defects was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
4

1

harm.
20.

2
3

FCA US LLC’s net worth, under California precedent for calculation of punitive

damages.
21.

4

Plaintiff’s total damages. Plaintiff has attached its calculation of Plaintiff’s damages

5

pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act to this Pretrial Statement as Exhibit 2. Defendant

6

disagrees with Plaintiff’s calculation of the mileage offset and asserts that charges for registration fees

7

after the first year are not allowed pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.

8

E.

None.

9
10
11

DISPUTED LEGAL ISSUES

F.

DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
Both parties intend to file motions in limine regarding the evidence to be used at trial. Counsel

12

SHALL conduct a meaningful meet-and-confer process to limit the motions to only those that

13

are necessary to file.

14

Plaintiff:

15

1.

Plaintiff reserves any objections to the content of any demonstrative exhibits, including

16

any intended PowerPoints or slideshows to be used by Defendant during opening or closing

17

presentations.

18

2.

Plaintiff objects to the introduction of any documentary evidence concerning any

19

dispute resolution program allegedly maintained by FCA US LLC, on the grounds that no such

20

evidence was produced by FCA US LLC in discovery. Plaintiff will object to any such evidence at the

21

time of trial, should FCA US LLC seek to introduce the same.

22

3.

Plaintiff objects to the introduction of any documentary evidence purporting to show

23

that the Durango’s problems are the result of misuse, with the exception of Premier CJDR repair

24

records, Puente Hills CDJR repair records and Alhambra CDJR Repair records produced by FCA US

25

LLC in discovery or produced by Plaintiff in discovery. Plaintiff is unaware of any other documentary

26

records of the condition of the Durango at the times it was presented for diagnosis and repair, and will

27

object to any such evidence at the time of trial, should FCA US LLC seek to introduce the same.

28

4.

Plaintiff will object to any testimony purporting to interpret the scope or applicability
5

1

of warranty coverage, which is an inadmissible legal opinion. Plaintiff will file a motion in limine on

2

this subject if Defendant does not stipulate.

3

5.

Plaintiff will object to any testimony, evidence or argument which Defendant may raise

4

in an effort to seek a charge-off or reduction in damages for funds received when Plaintiff traded the

5

vehicle in. Such reductions are not supported by the Song-Beverly Act which is a protective statute

6

intending to take away the benefit to the manufacturer for the sale of a non-conforming product.

7

Plaintiff will file a motion in limine on this subject if Defendant does not stipulate.

8
9
10

6.

Plaintiff will object to introduction of any evidence not produced in discovery. Plaintiff

will file a motion in limine on this subject if Defendant does not stipulate.
7.

Plaintiff will object to any testimony by Defendant’s trial witness that is not based on

11

personal knowledge. Plaintiff will file a motion in limine on this subject if Defendant does not

12

stipulate.

13

8.

14
15

Plaintiff will object to introduction of any evidence, testimony, or argument referring to

attorney fees. Plaintiff will file a motion in limine on this subject if Defendant does not stipulate.
9.

Plaintiff will object to introduction of any evidence, testimony, or argument referring to

16

settlement negotiations, including pre and postlitigation settlement offers. Plaintiff will file a motion in

17

limine on this subject if Defendant does not stipulate.

18

10.

Plaintiff will object to introduction of any evidence, testimony, or argument referring to

19

the Durango’s mileage at the time of trial. Plaintiff will file a motion in limine on this subject if

20

Defendant does not stipulate.

21

11.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s Exhibits are inadmissible pursuant to FRE 801, et.

22

seq., and FRC 26(a)(1)(A)(ii). These documents were not identified or produced by Defendant in

23

discovery, and Defendant has not identified any witness authorized to authenticate or testify about

24

these documents.

25

Defendant

26

1.

Plaintiff has listed “whether FCA US has an informal dispute resolution program” as a

27

disputed issue. The question would be relevant only if Plaintiff had pled entitlement to a civil penalty

28

under California Civil Code Section 1794(e)(1). Plaintiff’s sole basis for a civil penalty in his
6

1

Complaint is a “willful” violation of the Song-Beverly Act. The “willful” violation is set forth in

2

California Civil Code Section 1794(c). As Plaintiff did not plead a non-willful entitlement to a civil

3

penalty, Defendant did not identify the State of California’s certification of its third party informal

4

dispute resolution program in its Rule 26 disclosure. Defendant would seek leave of Court to augment

5

its disclosure to include the certification should Plaintiff seek to amend his Complaint.
2.

6

Plaintiff has indicated he intends to call as a witness any individual that FCA US has

7

attend the trial to sit at counsel table regardless of whether that individual has any knowledge

8

concerning any facts of this case. FCA US objects to such a tactic. FCA US will file a motion in this

9

regard.
3.

10

Defendant contends that opinions by Plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr. Barbara Luna,

11

concerning fraud are inadmissible. Defendant contends that Dr. Luna’s opinions lack sufficient

12

foundation and invade the purview of the jury. It is anticipated that Dr. Luna will testify live. The

13

dispute concerning Dr. Luna’s testimony concerning fraud may be addressed through a motion in

14

limine.

15

4.

Defendant contends that payments that Plaintiff made to insure the vehicle are not a

16

recoverable damage under Song-Beverly. Accordingly, Exhibit 34, which is Plaintiff’s insurance

17

documents, is not relevant and should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 401-402. The

18

dispute concerning Exhibit 34 may be addressed through a motion in limine.

19

5.

Defendant contends that Exhibits 108 through 143, and 269 through 272, which are

20

identified as National Highway Transportation Safety Administration documents, under FRE 401- 403

21

and FRC 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) as they were not previously identified in discovery. The documents concern

22

recalls that were not applicable to Plaintiff’s vehicle thus they not admissible as they are not relevant

23

to this case. Introduction of the documents would be confusing and consume undue amounts of time.

24

The dispute concerning these exhibits may be addressed through a motion in limine.

25

6.

Defendant contends that Exhibit 150, which is a Technical Service Bulletin for a

26

vehicle that is not the same model or model year as Plaintiff’s vehicle, is inadmissible pursuant to FRE

27

401-403 and FRC 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) as it was not previously identified in discovery and are irrelevant.

28

The dispute concerning this exhibit may be addressed through a motion in limine.
7

7.

1

Defendant contends that Exhibits 144-149, 153, 169-177, 179, 181, 183-191, 193-205,

2

208-213, 215-226, 228, 230-268 are inadmissible pursuant to FRE 401-403 and 602 and FRC

3

26(a)(1)(A)(ii). None of Plaintiff’s proposed witnesses have personal knowledge of these documents,

4

which consist of Defendant’s internal documents on a variety of subjects. Plaintiff conducted no

5

discovery concerning the contents of these documents and any testimony regarding their meaning

6

would be speculation. They were never identified in Plaintiff’s disclosure.

7

8.

The dispute concerning these exhibits may be addressed through a motion in limine.

8

9.

Defendant contends that Exhibits 178, 180, 182, 192, 206, 207, and 214 are

9

inadmissible pursuant to FRE 401-403, 602 and 901 and FRC 26(a)(1)(A)(ii). These documents

10

consist of documents prepared by nonparties Continental, NEC/TOKIN and TYCO Electronics.

11

Plaintiff conducted no discovery concerning the documents and any testimony regarding their meaning

12

would be speculation. They were never identified in Plaintiff’s disclosure. The dispute concerning

13

these exhibits may be addressed through a motion in limine.
10.

14
15

excluded.

16

G.

Defendant contends that all exhibits that do not relate to warrantable repairs should be

None.

17
18

SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION

H.

RELIEF SOUGHT

19

Plaintiff

20

Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of the vehicle, plus incidental and consequential

21

damages as well as a civil penalty of up to two times actual damages for Defendant’s alleged willful

22

failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff also seeks damages, including punitive

23

damages, for Defendant’s alleged fraudulent concealment of a known defect.

24

I.

ABANDONED ISSUES
Defendant withdraws the following Affirmative Defenses: First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth,

25
26

Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and

27

Twenty-Eighth.

28

///
8

1

J.

WITNESSES
1.

2

The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including

3

rebuttal and impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS

4

SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A

5

SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST

6

INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(10).

7

a.

Larry Celestine

8

b.

Michael McDowell, FCA’s Person Most Knowledgeable, Irvine, California

9

c.

Premier Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram’s Person Most Qualified, Premier CJDR,

10

3460 Naglee Road, Tracy, CA. The plaintiff SHALL file a supplement to identify this witness’ name

11

no later than May 31, 2019.1 Failure to do so will result in this witness being excluded.

12

d.

Darrell Blasjo, Plaintiff’s expert

13

e.

Dr. Barbara Luna, Plaintiff’s expert

14

f.

Richard Schmidt, Defendant’s automotive expert

15

g.

James Bielenda, Defendant’s automotive engineer, Auburn Hills, Michigan.

2.

16
17

including impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:
a.

18
19

The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness will rebut

evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at the pretrial conference, or
b.

20
21

The court does not allow undisclosed witnesses to be called for any purpose,

The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering party

makes the showing required in paragraph 3, below.
3.

22

Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial, the party

23

shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of the unlisted witness, so the court

24

may consider whether the witness will be permitted to testify at trial. The witness will not be permitted

25
26

Plaintiff’s counsel offered no explanation why this person’s name was not included in the joint pretrial report. He
reported that the witness had been deposed, so it is inexplicable why his or her name was not included. This is the second
time plaintiff’s counsel has done this (See Durham v. FCA US LLC, Case Number: 2:17-cv-00596 JLT (Doc. 53 at 17) and
this is the second time the Court has bailed out plaintiff’s counsel. If there is a next time, the Court will strike the witness
unless the person is identified by name or there is a showing that the plaintiff does not know the person’s name.
1

27
28

9

1

unless:

2

a. The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the discovery cutoff;

3

b. The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness;

4

c.

5

d. If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony was provided
to opposing parties.

6
7

K.

10

EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES
The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties identified in their joint

8
9

If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and

pretrial statement. They SHALL review every exhibit listed to determine those exhibit that will not
be offered at trial and limit this list only to those they expect to offer at trial.2
NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE ADMITTED

11
12

UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE

13

MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(11).
1.

14
15

For the parties to use an undisclosed exhibit for any purpose, they must meet the

following criteria:
a. The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is to rebut evidence

16

that could not have been reasonably anticipated, or

17

b. The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the proffering party

18

makes the showing required in paragraph 2, below.

19
2.

20

Upon the discovery of an exhibit after the discovery cutoff, the party shall promptly

21

inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of the exhibit, so that the court may consider the

22

admissibility at trial. The exhibit will not be received unless the proffering party demonstrates:

23

a. The exhibit could not reasonably have been discovered earlier;

24

b. The court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of its existence; and

25

c. The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibit (if physically possible) to the

26
27
28

2

This should have been done before filing the joint pretrial conference so that the joint pretrial report accurately reflects
those exhibits the parties expect to offer. The Court notes that counsel seem to have failed to provide a joint pretrial report
that is specific to this case and is boilerplate from other similar cases. This is insufficient and fails to comply with Local
Rule 281 and the order of the Court (Doc. 19 at 5)

10

1

opposing party. If the exhibit may not be copied, the proffering party must show that

2

it has made the exhibit reasonably available for inspection by the opposing parties.

3

Joint Exhibits

4

The parties have identified the following exhibits to which there are no objections, and which

5

may be introduced by Plaintiff or Defendant:

6

1.

Retail Installment Sale Contract dated April 12, 2012

7

2.

Trade-In Retail Instalment [sic] Sales Contract dated May 4, 2015

8

3.

2012 Warranty Information Booklet

9

4.

Warranty Claim Records

10

5.

Warranty Claim Summary Report

11

6.

Request for Exclusion letter

12

7.

Vehicle Information Detail Report

13

8.

Pre-Contract Disclosure Statement

14

9.

Chrysler Service Contract Application

15

10.

Chrysler Group LLC Invoice

16

11.

GAP Addendum

17

12.

Agreement to furnish Insurance Pollicy [sic]

18

13.

Antioch Chrysler Jeep Dodge Inc. Vehicle Invoice

19

14.

Repair Order Detail

20

15.

Tracy Chrysler Jeep Dodge Repair Order No. 51453 dated April 23, 2012

21

16.

Tracy Chrysler Jeep Dodge Repair Order No. 55701 dated October 17, 2012

22

17.

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 61841 dated March

23

19, 2013

24

18.

25

11, 2014 15 [sic]

26

19.

27
28

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 70919 dated March

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 76033 dated October

1, 2014
20.

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 78579 dated January
11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

16, 2015
21.

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 78917 dated January

30, 2015
22.

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 313289 dated August

17, 2015
23.

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 313988 dated August

31, 2015
24.

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 315133 dated

September 19, 2015

10

25.

11

January 11, 2016

12

26.

13

January 11, 2016

14

27.

15

January 14, 2016

16

28.

17

February 10, 2016

18

29.

19
20
21

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 254302 dated

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 254304 dated

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 319636 dated

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 320727 dated

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 259018 dated

May 5, 2016
30.

Premiere Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Tracy Repair Order No. 265625 dated

October 6, 2016

22

31.

TSB Index

23

32.

Recall Index

24

33.

Recall P60/ NHTSA 14V-634

25

34.

Liberty Mutual Proof of Insurance

26

35.

Golden 1 Credit Union documents

27

Plaintiff’s Exhibits

28

100.

Velasco, et al. Chrysler Group LLC, Inc., No. 2:13- cv-08080 Final Order and
12

1
2
3

Judgment
101.

Plaintiff’s Request for Exclusion from Velasco, et al. Chrysler Group LLC, Inc., No.

2:13- cv-08080

4

102.

Recall R09 Owner Notification Letter (Plaintiff’s Copy)

5

103.

Recall R09 Dealer Service Instructions

6

104.

FCA Dealer Policy Manual

7

105.

Recall P60 Dealer Service Instructions

8

106.

Recall P60 Sample Owner Notification Letter

9

107.

Blank

10

108.

NHTSA Recall 05V-461 – Defect and Noncompliance Notice dated 10/04/2005

11

109.

NHTSA Recall 05V-461 – Recall Acknowledgment

12

110.

NHTSA Recall 05V-461 – Information Required by Defects Report Regulation

13

dated 11/03/2005

14

111.

NHTSA Recall 05V-461 – Remedy Instructions and TSB dated November 2005

15

112.

NHTSA Recall 05V-461 –Owner Notification Letter

16

113.

NHTSA Recall 05V-461 – Recall Quarterly Report dated 12/31/2005

17

114.

NHTSA Investigation PE07- 027 ODI Resume dated 5/29/2007

18

115.

NHTSA Recall 07V-291 – Defect Notice dated 7/03/2007

19

116.

NHTSA Recall 07V-291 – Recall Acknowledgment dated 7/09/2007

20

117.

NHTSA Recall 07V-291 – Remedy Instructions and TSB dated July 2007

21

118.

NHTSA Recall 07V-291 – Owner Notification Letter

22

119.

NHTSA Recall 07V-291 – Recall Quarterly Report dated 9/30/2007

23

120.

Emissions Recall 2007-15-E (G23) dated 2007

24

121.

Technical Service Bulletin 08-018-08 dated May 2008

25

122.

NHTSA Recall 09V-438 – Defect Notice dated 11/03/2009

26

123.

NHTSA Recall 09V-438 – Recall Acknowledgment dated 11/09/2009

27

124.

NHTSA Recall 09V-438 – Owner Notification Letter

28

125.

Technical Service Bulletin 08-053-11 dated August 2011
13

1

126.

NHTSA Recall 13V-282 Defect Notice dated 7/02/2013

2

127.

NHTSA Recall 13V-282 – Owner Notification Letter

3

128.

NHTSA Recall 13V-282 – Recall Acknowledgment dated 7/5/2013

4

129.

NHTSA Recall 13V-282 – Remedy Instructions and TSB dated 11/2013

5

130.

NHTSA Recall 13V-282 – Information Required by Defects Report Regulation

6

dated 1/31/2014

7

131.

Center for Auto Safety Defect Petition to NHTSA dated 8/21/2014

8

132.

NHTSA Recall 14V-530 – Defect Notice (Part 573) dated 9/03/2014

9

133.

NHTSA Recall 14V-530 – Manufacturers Notices dated 9/4/2014

10

134.

NHTSA Recall 14V-530 – Recall Acknowledgment dated 9/19/2014

11

135.

NHTSA Recall 14V-530 – Memo and Email dated 10/24/2014

12

136.

NHTSA Recall 14V-530 – Interim Owner Notification Letter (Part 577)

13

Communication Cover Letter dated 11/11/2014
NHTSA Recall 14V-530 – Interim Owner Notification Letter (Part 577) dated

14

137.

15

11/11/2014

16

138.

NHTSA Recall 14V-530 – Issued Owner Notification Letter (Part 577)

17

139.

NHTSA Recall 14V-530 – Info Required by Defects Report Regulation dated

18

1/06/2015

19

140.

NHTSA Recall 14V-530 – Recall Quarterly Report dated 1/08/2015

20

141.

Center for Auto Safety Supplement dated 9/8/2014

21

142.

NHTSA Denial of Petition for a Defect Investigation dated 7/24/2015

22

143.

Safety Recall P54/NHTSA 14V- 530 Fuel Pump Relay

23

144.

Email from David Baker dated 6/17/2014 regarding TIPM Returns from Safety

24
25
26
27
28

Office Weekly Meeting Agenda – Aug 10 (CGLLC060961-69)
145.

Plaintiff Email from Robert Samko Jr. dated 4/1/2014 regarding fuel pump status

update for tomorrow morning (CGLLC060986-87)
146.

Email from Hassan Malik dated 4/24/2014 regarding DOE-Fuel Pump Relay Testing

Kick Off at CTC (CGLLC061013-19)
14

1

147.

Powerpoint presentation titled “Relay Testing” (CGLLC061099-1101)

2

148.

Email from Patrick Dean dated 11/29/2010 regarding Issues with TIPM software

3

(CGLLC061129-32)

4

149.

Corrective Action Process Issue #271414 dated 04/27/09 (CGLLC086937)

5

150.

TSB 08-024-11 Rev. A

6

151.

151 Plaintiff Safety Recall R09 / NHTSA 15V-115 Fuel Pump Relay

7

152.

Blank

8

153.

FCA Policies

9

154-168

Blank

169.

“Low Current Switch Best Practices and Lessons Learned” dated 06/05/09

10
11
12
13
14
15

Document Number SD-11814 (Bates CGLL079151-54)
170.

Email from David Baker dated 6/17/14 regarding TIPM Returns from Safety Office

Weekly Meeting Agenda (CGLLC060961-69)
171.

Email from Seakleang Chheu dated 9/17/10 regarding 2011 RT Release – TIPM7C

for S2B Build (CGLLC068415-17)

16

172.

17

(CGLLC060882-84)

18

173.

19
20
21
22
23

Email from Seakleang Chheu dated 10/04/10 regarding 2011 MY TIPM7C & &Ci

Email from Seakleang Chheu dated 10/21/10 regarding T1018- M10-00

(CGLLC063713)
174.

Email from Seakleang Chheu dated 10/25/10 regarding Turn Lamp Diagnostics for

2011MY RT (CGLLC073514-16)
175.

Email from Seakleang Chheu dated 10/28/10 regarding 2010MY TIPM7C – VTA

Test Software on 2010 RT Vehicle in BC, Canada (CGLLC070637-39)

24

176.

25

(CGLLC061824-26)

26

177.

27
28

Email from Saji John dated 12/02/10 regarding TIPM from vin AT214727

Email from Patrick Dean dated 11/29/10 regarding Issues with TIPM software (70th

Anniversary Jeep) (CGLLC061129-32)
178.

Continental Automotive Systems Software Release Notes Project: TIPM MY12
15

1

(CGLLC060855-70)

2

179.

3

(CGLLC061427-39)

4

180.

5

Continental Totally Integrated Power Management Module (TIPM7) Engineering

Test Plan for Silicon contamination on NEC Relay (CGLLC077140-47)
181.

6
7

Email from Robert Strother dated 8/08/11 regarding Radio signal strength logs

2013MY 3MIS Ordinary Quality May Built Vehicles Electrical/Electronics &

Uconnect (CGLLC079465-83)

8

182.

Continental: TIPM7 Risk Assessment (CGLLC077148-50)

9

183.

Email from Carlos Munoz-Valadez dated 8/21/13 regarding TIPM7 WD/WK

10

Replacements for Fuel Pump Relay Issue (CGLLC077740-41)
184.

11
12

Email from Satnam Bansal dated 9/05/13 regarding TIPM7 WD/WK Replacements

for Fuel Pump Relay Issue (CGLLC077137-38)
Email from Robert Samko Jr. dated 10/03/13 regarding WK’11 – TIPM no start

13

185.

14

(CGLLC084404-07)

15

186.

16

(CGLLC078442-44)

17

187.

DealerConnect Part Inquiry for RL692316AI (CGLLC078446)

18

188.

Omitted

19

189.

Email from Greg Niemiec dated 9/27/13 regarding TIPM p/n RL692316AI

20

(CGLLC078458-60)

21

190.

22

191.

27
28

Email from Lisa Sacino dated 10/03/13 regarding Review MY 11-13 WK TIPM

Proposed Repair Procedure (CGLLC084222-24)
192.

Continental MY 2011 TIPM7 36 Months in Service dated 10/04/13 (CGLLC07610-

193.

25
26

Email from Jeff Fenoseff dated 10/01/13 regarding Potential New Investigation:

2011- 2013 WK/WD TIPM (CGLLC079333)

23
24

Email from Greg Niemiec dated 9/27/13 regarding TIPM p/n RL692316AI

Email from Greg Niemiec dated 10/08/13 regarding Meeting minutes from TIPM7

14)

Fuel Pump discussion (CGLLC076468-70)
16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

194.

Email from Jennifer Moore dated 10/16/13 regarding Meeting minutes from TIPM7

Fuel Pump discussion (CGLLC076932-35)
195.

Email from Mark Cornell dated 10/11/13 regarding Notes from Mopar VOR TIPM7

Meeting (CGLLC076489-90)
196.

Email from David Bustamante dated 10/16/13 regarding TIPM-Service Part

Shortage (CGLLC084641)
197.

Email from Saji John dated 10/18/13 regarding TIPM7 Fuel Pump assembly plant

process (CGLLC077732-33)
198.

Email from Greg Niemiec dated 10/24/13 regarding 11 WK TIPM – Fuel Pump

Relay Bypass Validation (CGLLC078543-44)
199.

Email from Greg Niemiec dated 10/25/13 regarding Emerging Issue TIPM

replacements for 11-13 WK’s 04692316AJ (CGLLC078582-84)
200.

Email from Robert Samko Jr. dated 10/28/13 regarding TIPM fuel pump sales code

analysis (CGLLC079163-64)
201.

Email from Dinh Tran dated 10/28/13 regarding Scope plots taken from WK/RT at

Troy (CGLLC084235-36)
202.

Email from Jennifer Kozik dated 10/30/13 regarding MY11 WK/WD TIPM – On

Hold (CGLLC079035-36)

19

203.

20

(CGLLC07658-62)

21

204.

22

Email from Jennifer Moore dated 11/08/13 regarding Status TIPM I-Sheet and kits

Email from Greg Niemiec dated 10/31/13 regarding TIPM Update Intermittent

Crank No Start (CGLLC078489-90)

23

205.

Chrysler I-Sheet for Wiring Swap (CN# 30118-V02-AA) (CGLLC079663-64)

24

206.

Continental Analysis Report #0080813 dated 11/09/13 (CGLLC078953-77)

25

207.

Continental Analysis Report #0080813 dated 11/09/13 (CGLLC078013-49)

26

208.

Email from Satnam Bansal dated 11/11/13 regarding NHTSA Vehicle Owner

27
28

Questionnaire (CGLLC084230-31)
209.

Email from Mark Cornell dated 11/13/13 regarding WK Fuel pump relay report
17

1

(CGLLC078068-69)

2

210.

3

(CGLLC078684-87)

4

211.

5

(CGLLC079442-52)

6

212.

7

(CGLLC077905-12)

8

213.

2011 WK QNA Summary for TIPM Fuel Pump Relay (CGLLC076955-60)

9

214.

NEC/TOKIN Analysis Result of Returned Module for Continental (Interim 2nd)

10

Email from Tim Corsich dated 11/20/13 regarding Platform variation

Email from Robert Samko Jr. dated 11/20/13 regarding Management awareness

Chrysler Fuel Pump Relay – Root Cause Update Powerpoint dated 11/22/13

dated 11/29/13 (CGLLC077760-84)

11

215.

Totally Integrated Power Module Investigation (TIPM7) Powerpoint dated 12/13/13

12

216.

Email from Jeff Fenoseff dated 12/13/13 regarding Request: TIPM Usage / Read

13
14
15
16
17
18

Across (CGLLC078978-80)
217.

Email from Carlos Munoz-Valadez dated 1/14/14 regarding Fuel Pump TIPM7 –

Snubber and External relay testing (CGLLC077916-18)
218.

Email from Jennifer Moore dated 1/21/14 regarding TIPM7 service component

ISheet (CGLLC078680-81)
219.

Email from Satnam Bansal dated 1/29/14 regarding WK/WD TIPM Temperature

19

Classification (PF- 11284 Totally Integrated Power Management (TIPM) Module Performance

20

Standard (CGLLC084521-22)

21
22

220.

Email from Timothy Kraft dated 1/31/14 regarding 11/12 WK Fog Light

Malfunction (CGLLC078356-57)

23

221.

24

(CGLLC077037-40)

25

222.

26

Email from Mark Cornell dated 2/19/14 regarding WD/WK Relay Discussion

Email from Satnam Bansal dated 2/26/14 regarding TIPM7 – Fuel Pump Relay

Workshop (CGLLC077064-68)
Email from Carlos Munoz-Valadez dated 3/31/14 regarding TIPM – Fuel Relay

27

223.

28

(CGLLC061110-13)
18

1
2

224.

Email from Robert Schropshire, Jr. dated 4/15/14 regarding 20 ms glitch on PCM

fuel pump relay Ctrl (CGLLC060916-22)

3

225.

Email from Simon Kissonergis dated 5/13/14 regarding TIPM (CGLLC084561)

4

226.

Email from Dennis Gauthier dated 5/20/14 regarding 2011 DS Truck Florida

5
6
7

Evaluations (CGLLC076577-78)
227.

Email from Jennifer Moore dated 6/10/14 regarding Continental TIPM/CBC Status

(CGLLC084545)

8

228.

TIPM7 Fuel Pump Relay Executive Review Powerpoint dated 8/25/14

9

(CGLLC086853-61)

10

229.

Tyco Electronics Application Note – Relay Contact Life (CGLLC076730-32)

11

230.

Corrective Action Process Issue #208186 dated 01/04/06 (CGLLC087011-17)

12

231.

Corrective Action Process Issue #210412 dated 01/19/06 (CGLLC087018-26)

13

232.

Corrective Action Process Issue #212625 dated 01/31/06 (CGLLC087240-48)

14

233.

Corrective Action Process Issue #218382 dated 04/21/2006 (CGLLC087027-33)

15

234.

Corrective Action Process Issue #226741 dated 02/21/07 (CGLLC087072-79)

16

235.

Corrective Action Process Issue #239773 dated 05/15/07 (CGLLC087096-101)

17

236.

Corrective Action Process Issue #246185 dated 08/15/07 (CGLLC086880-87)

18

237.

Corrective Action Process Issue #246472 dated 08/20/07 (CGLLC086888-94)

19

238.

Corrective Action Process Issue #244159 dated 02/27/08 (CGLLC087102-110)

20

239.

Corrective Action Process Issue #248304 dated 09/27/07 (CGLLC086895-901)

21

240.

Corrective Action Process Issue #258126 dated 06/11/08 (CGLLC087385-92)

22

241.

Corrective Action Process Issue #261428 dated 08/28/08 (CGLLC086902-08)

23

242.

Corrective Action Process Issue #263440 dated 10/08/08 (CGLLC086909-15)

24

243.

Corrective Action Process Issue #264520 dated 11/03/08 (CGLLC086924-29)

25

244.

Corrective Action Process Issue #267716 dated 02/02/09 (CGLLC087148-54)

26

245.

Corrective Action Process Issue #268873 dated 02/27/09 (CGLLC087393-400)

27

246.

Corrective Action Process Issue #271414 dated 04/27/09 (CGLLC086937-44)

28

247.

Corrective Action Process Issue #272085 dated 05/26/09 (CGLLC087401-06)
19

1

248.

Corrective Action Process Issue #283571 dated 02/24/10 (CGLLC087170-76)

2

249.

Corrective Action Process Issue #289710 dated 06/08/10 (CGLLC087177-82)

3

250.

Corrective Action Process Issue #295263 dated 08/30/10 (CGLLC086964-71)

4

251.

Corrective Action Process Issue #304629 dated 03/02/11 (CGLLC087446-53)

5

252.

Corrective Action Process Issue #304626 dated 03/02/11 (CGLLC087437-45)

6

253.

Corrective Action Process Issue #310391 dated 01/25/12 (CGLLC087573-80)

7

254.

Corrective Action Process Issue #333346 dated 11/21/12 (CGLLC086981-86)

8

255.

Corrective Action Process Issue #337774 dated 02/04/13 (CGLLC086987-92)

9

256.

Corrective Action Process Issue #338250 dated 02/10/13 (CGLLC086993-99)

10

257.

Corrective Action Process Issue #338418 dated 02/12/13 (CGLLC087581-87)

11

258.

July 2009 PDF - Customer return abnormalities

12

259.

December 21, 2010 Email - Two TIPMs sent for testing - VTA alarm goes off

13

by itself

14

260.

January 7, 2011 Email - Multiple cars reporting TIPM fault #P129E

15

261.

January 19, 2011 Powerpoint - What is known about the TIPM and what could be

16

root cause

17

262.

February 7, 2011 Email - List of VINs

18

263.

2011 Dodge Durango Marketing Material and Research

19

264.

January 20, 2011 Email – TIPM software 08 F462 faults during turn signal

20

265.

March 14, 2011 Email - Lots of claims, most low miles

21

266.

April 24, 2013 Powerpoint – No start is Top 10 TIPM-7 complaint

22

267.

October 17, 2013 Email - Seeing high TIPM-7 warranty claims

23

268.

March 4, 2014 Email - High mileage TIPM-7

24

269.

May 2014 – NHTSA Recall 14V-154 Model year (Brake Booster Recall)

25

270.

August 2014 - NHTSA Recall 14V- 391 Model year 2011

26

271.

July 2015 – NHTSA Recall 14V-634

27

272.

July 2016 – NHTSA Recall 15V-879 Model year 2011-2012 (Sun visor wiring)

28

Defendant’s Exhibits
20

1

300.

Law Level 1 and 2 Handling and Escalation Process

2

301.

Lemon Laws Overview

3

302.

Federal Register/Vol. 80. No. 146/Thursday, July 30, 2015 Department of

4

Transportation Highway Traffic Safety Administration Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition.

5

303.

Owner’s Manual for Dodge Durango

6

304.

Warranty Manual for 2012 Dodge Durango

7

305.

TIPM7 Fuel Pump Relay Executive Review, 2014

8

306.

CAN C Bus Topology – 2012 Dodge Durango

9

307.

CAN HIS Network Topology – 2012 Dodge Durango

10

308.

CAN HIS Network Topology – 2012 Dodge Durango

11

309.

Photograph of 2007 Wrangler TIPM7

12

310.

Photograph of 2007 Dodge Nitro TIPM7

13

311.

Photograph of 2012 Dodge Durango TIPM7

14

312.

Part Number List of TIPM7s 2007-2013

15

313.

Warranty Claim Detail Report

16

314.

Expert file for Mr. Schmidt

17

315.

Certificate re: Qualified Alternate Dispute Resolution Program

18

Exhibit Conference

19

On or before June 7, 2019, counsel SHALL meet and confer to discuss any disputes related to

20

the above listed exhibits and to pre-mark and examining each other’s exhibits. Any exhibits not

21

previously disclosed in discovery SHALL be provided via e-mail or overnight delivery so that it is

22

received by June 3, 2019.

23

1.

At the exhibit conference, counsel will determine whether there are objections to the

24

admission of each of the exhibits and will prepare separate indexes; one listing joint exhibits, one

25

listing Plaintiff’s exhibits and one listing Defendant’s exhibits. In advance of the conference, counsel

26

must have a complete set of their proposed exhibits in order to be able to fully discuss whether

27

evidentiary objections exist. Thus, any exhibit not previously provided in discovery SHALL be

28

provided at least five court days in advance of the exhibit conference.
21

1

2.

At the conference, counsel shall identify any duplicate exhibits, i.e., any document

2

which both sides desire to introduce into evidence. These exhibits SHALL be marked as a joint exhibit

3

and numbered as directed above. Joint exhibits SHALL be admitted into without further foundation.

4

All Joint exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers preceded by the designation “JT” (e.g.

5

JT/1, JT/2, etc.). As to any “Shared Exhibits,” which are exhibits that both parties would like marked

6

but to which there may be objections to their introduction, they will be appropriately marked, i.e., as

7

“SE” and will be indexed as such on the index provided in the Shared Exhibit binder. At trial, the

8

proponent of the exhibit will be obligated to lay the proper foundation for the exhibit unless there is a

9

stipulation to admit the exhibit without a further showing.

10

Plaintiff’s exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 1 by the designation PX

11

(e.g. PX1, PX2, etc.). Defendant’s exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 501

12

preceded by the designation DX (e.g. DX501, DX502, etc.). The parties SHALL number each page of

13

any exhibit exceeding one page in length (e.g. PX1-1, PX1-2, PX1-3, etc.).

14
15
16

If originals of exhibits are unavailable, the parties may substitute legible copies. If any
document is offered that is not fully legible, the Court may exclude it from evidence.
Each joint exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the

17

exhibits. The index shall consist of a column for the exhibit number, one for a description of the

18

exhibit and one column entitled “Admitted in Evidence” (as shown in the example below).
INDEX OF EXHIBITS

19

ADMITTED

20
21
22

EXHIBIT#
3.

DESCRIPTION

IN EVIDENCE

As to any exhibit which is not a joint exhibit but to which there is no objection to its

23

introduction, the exhibit will likewise be appropriately marked, i.e., as PX1, or as DX501 and will be

24

indexed as such on the index of the offering party. Such exhibits will be admitted upon introduction

25

and motion of the party, without further foundation.

26

4.

Each exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the

27

exhibits. Each index shall consist of the exhibit number, the description of the exhibit and the three

28

columns as shown in the example below.
22

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

1

ADMITTED

2
3

EXHIBIT#
5.

4
5

DESCRIPTION

OBJECTION

IN EVIDENCE

FOUNDATION

OTHER
OBJECTION

On the index, as to exhibits to which the only objection is a lack of foundation, counsel

will place a mark under the column heading entitled “Admissible but for Foundation.”
6.

6

On the index, as to exhibits to which there are objections to admissibility that are not

7

based solely on a lack of foundation, counsel will place a mark under the column heading entitled

8

“Other Objections.”
After the exhibit conference, Plaintiff and counsel for the defendants SHALL develop four

9
10

complete, legible sets of exhibits. The parties SHALL deliver three sets of their exhibit binders to the

11

Courtroom Clerk and provide one set to their opponent, no later than 4:00 p.m., on July 12, 2019

12

Counsel SHALL determine which of them will also provide three sets of the joint exhibits to the

13

Courtroom Clerk.

14

7.

15

L.

The Parties SHALL number each page of any exhibit exceeding one page in length.

POST-TRIAL EXHIBIT RETENTION

16

Counsel who introduced exhibits at trial SHALL retrieve the original exhibits from the

17

courtroom deputy following the verdict in the case. The parties’ counsel SHALL retain possession of

18

and keep safe, all exhibits until final judgment and all appeals are exhausted.

19

M.

20

DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS
The following is a list of discovery documents – portions of depositions, answers to

21

interrogatories, and responses to requests for admissions – that the parties expect to offer at trial.

22

NO DISCOVERY DOCUMENT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE

23

ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER

24

SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local

25

Rule 281(b)(12).

26

Plaintiff’s Documents

27

1. Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents

28

2. Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories
23

1

3. Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission

2

Defendants’ Documents

3

1. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents

4

2. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories

5

3. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission

6

N.

No further discovery is sought by either party.

7
8
9

FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

O.

MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Any party may file motions in limine. The purpose of a motion in limine is to establish in

10

advance of the trial that certain evidence should not be offered at trial. “Although the Federal Rules of

11

Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the

12

district court’s inherent authority to manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38,

13

40 n. 2 (1984); Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F. 3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997).

14

The Court will grant a motion in limine, and thereby bar use of the evidence in question, only if the

15

moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Id.

16

In advance of filing any motion in limine, counsel SHALL meet and confer to determine

17

whether they can resolve any disputes and avoid filing motions in limine. The conference should

18

be in person but, if this is not possible, SHALL, at a minimum, be telephonic. Written meet-

19

and-confer conferences are unacceptable. Along with their motions in limine, the parties

20

SHALL file a certification detailing the conference such to demonstrate counsel have in good

21

faith met and conferred and attempted to resolve the dispute. Failure to provide the

22

certification may result in the Court refusing to entertain the motion.

23

Any motions in limine must be filed with the Court by June 14, 2019. The motion must

24

clearly identify the nature of the evidence that the moving party seeks to prohibit the other side from

25

offering at trial. Any opposition to the motion must be served on the other party and filed with the

26

Court by June 21, 2019. The Court sets a hearing on the motions in limine on July 1, 2019, at 10:30

27

a.m. Counsel may appear via teleconference by dialing [phone] and entering Access Code

28

1652736, provided the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Deputy Clerk receives a written notice of the
24

1

intent to appear telephonically no later than five court days before the noticed hearing date.
The parties are reminded they may still object to the introduction of evidence during trial.

2
3

P.

None.

4
5

Q.

R.

SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
The parties have engaged in settlement discussions but have been unable to reach a resolution.

8
9

AMENDMENTS/ DISMISSALS
None.

6
7

STIPULATIONS

The parties attended a settlement conference on March 20, 2018, which was not successful, but plan to

10

continue negotiating.

11

S.

None.

12
13

T.

U.

V.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES
The parties will seek an award of attorneys’ fees as appropriate as a post-trial motion.

18
19

APPOINTMENT OF IMPARTIAL EXPERTS
None requested.

16
17

SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES
None.

14
15

AGREED STATEMENT

W.

TRIAL DATE/ ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL
Jury trial is set for July 15, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston at the

20
21

United States Courthouse, 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. The trial estimate is 3-4 days The

22

Court expects an efficient presentation of the case and will not tolerate “dead time.” Counsel

23

SHALL plan accordingly.

24

X.

TRIAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSIONS

25

1.

Trial Briefs

26

The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file trial briefs. If any party

27

wishes to file a trial brief, they must do so in accordance with Local Rule 285 and be filed on or before

28

July 5, 2019.
25

1

2.

2

The parties are required to file their proposed voir dire questions, in accordance with Local

3

Jury Voir Dire

Rule 162.1, on or before July 5, 2019.

4

3.

Jury Instructions & Verdict Form

5

The parties shall serve, via e-mail or fax, their proposed jury instructions in accordance with

6

Local Rule 163 and their proposed verdict form on one another no later than June 3, 2019. The parties

7

shall conduct a conference to address their proposed jury instructions and verdict form no later than

8

June 7, 2019. At the conference, the parties SHALL attempt to reach agreement on jury instructions

9

and verdict form for use at trial. The parties shall file all agreed-upon jury instructions and verdict

10

form no later than July 5, 2019 and identify such as the agreed-upon jury instructions and verdict

11

forms. At the same time, the parties SHALL lodge via e-mail a copy of the joint jury instructions and

12

joint verdict form (in Word format) to [e-mail].
If and only if, the parties after a genuine, reasonable and good faith effort, cannot agree

13
14

upon certain specific jury instructions and verdict form, the parties shall file their respective proposed

15

(disputed) jury instructions and proposed (disputed) verdict form no later than July 5, 2019 and

16

identify such as the disputed jury instructions and verdict forms. At the same time, the parties

17

SHALL lodge via e-mail, a copy of his/their own (disputed) jury instructions and proposed (disputed)

18

verdict form (in Word format) to [e-mail].

19

In selecting proposed instructions, the parties shall use Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

20

Instructions or California’s CACI instructions to the extent possible. All jury instructions and verdict

21

forms shall indicate the party submitting the instruction or verdict form (i.e., joint, plaintiff’s,

22

defendant’s, etc.), the number of the proposed instruction in sequence, a brief title for the instruction

23

describing the subject matter, the complete text of the instruction, and the legal authority supporting

24

the instruction. Each instruction SHALL be numbered.

25

Y.

OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER

26

Any party may, within 10 days after the date of service of this order, file and serve written

27

objections to any of the provisions set forth in this order. Such objections shall clearly specify the

28

requested modifications, corrections, additions or deletions.
26

1

Z.

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
None.

2
3
4

AA.

COMPLIANCE
Strict compliance with this order and its requirements is mandatory. All parties and

5

their counsel are subject to sanctions, including dismissal or entry of default, for failure to fully

6

comply with this order and its requirements.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 28, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27