Espinosa et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 347

ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES: Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/10/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Jury Selection set for 3/10/2014 08:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Jury Trial set for 3/10/2014 08:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jeffrey S. White.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/30/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

KATHLEEN ESPINOSA, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiffs,

No. C 06-04686 JSW

v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
et al.,

13

ORDER CONTINUING
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND
TRIAL DATES

Defendants.
14

/

15
16

In light of the criminal trials on the Court’s docket, which take precedence over civil

17

trials due to the Speedy Trial Act, the trial in this matter will not be able to start on the

18

scheduled day of December 2, 2013. Therefore the Court HEREBY CONTINUES the pretrial

19

conference and trial to February 10, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. and March 10, 2014 at 8:00 a.m.,

20

respectively. Jury selection will begin on March 5, 2014 at 8:00 a.m. The continuance of these

21

dates does not create an additional opportunity to file additional documents, such as Plaintiffs’

22

supplemental trial brief, which have not been specifically required by the Court. Pretrial briefs

23

and motions were due two weeks before the initial pretrial conference, on April 2, 2013. To the

24

extent parties seek to file additional pretrial briefs or motions, they shall seek leave of Court

25

upon a showing of good cause.

26
27
28

Under the guise of filing a supplemental trial brief, Plaintiff appears to reargue the
Court’s rulings on motions in limine. The Court will only consider argument on motions

1

already decided by this Court that are raised pursuant to a properly filed and supported motion

2

for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

3

Plaintiffs also state that they will seek a stipulation to file a supplemental jury

not clear why Plaintiffs waited over two months after California Supreme Court opinion was

6

issued to even suggest that they intend to belatedly request an additional jury instruction.

7

Moreover, despite the fact that the scheduled second pretrial conference is less than one week

8

away, Plaintiffs have not yet filed their proposed additional jury instruction. The Court does

9

not condone Plaintiffs’ delay. Plaintiffs shall file their proposed additional jury instruction,

10

either stipulated or disputed, by no later than November 4, 2013. If Defendants dispute the

11
For the Northern District of California

instruction based on a California Supreme Court opinion which was issued in mid-August. It is

5

United States District Court

4

proposed additional jury instruction, Defendants may file a response by no later than November

12

8, 2013. Again, as noted above, if the parties seek to request any additional changes to the

13

requested jury instructions, they shall seek leave of Court upon a showing of good cause.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: September 30, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2