Humboldt Baykeeper et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al

Filing 445

ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White denying 438 Motion for Status Conference (jswlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER and ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, et al., Defendants. /

No. C 06-02560 JSW

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

The Court HEREBY DENIES Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company's ("Union Pacific") administrative motion to have a status conference in advance of the pretrial conference to address issues for trial. The Court admonishes Union Pacific that their recent change in counsel does not provide an opportunity to revisit past rulings or to make arguments that their predecessor failed to make. In their request for a special status conference, Union Pacific states that "there are several other issues that could be resolved as a matter of law in pretrial proceedings, thereby narrowing the issues and reducing the time required for trial." (Admin Mot. at 3.) However, the time for bringing dispositive motions has long since passed. Additionally, the parties have already had their opportunity to bring motions in limine. As the Court addressed at the earlier pretrial conference, the second pretrial conference is not an opportunity to submit additional motions in limine or objections, unless such motions or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

objections are justified by changes in circumstances dated after first current pretrial conference. Obtaining new counsel does not qualify as one of these changes in circumstances. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2010

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2