Jenkins et al v. City of Richmond

Filing 567

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 566 Plaintiff's Motion to Continue the Trial Date; and Ordering Compliance with the Court's Pretrial Instructions. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/6/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (emcsec, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JAMES JENKINS, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 CITY OF RICHMOND, 12 Defendant. ___________________________________/ No. C-08-3401 EMC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; AND ORDERING COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S PRETRIAL INSTRUCTIONS (Docket No. 566) 13 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Pickett’s motion to continue the trial, currently set to begin on 16 January 6, 2014. Dkt. No. 566. This motion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s counsel has been representing 17 Plaintiff in this action since November 2012. Further, in May 2013, Plaintiff represented to the 18 Court that he was ready to proceed with trial on July 29, 2013. Dkt. No. 542, at 2. Accordingly, 19 Plaintiff and his counsel have had ample time to prepare for the January 2014 trial. Further, 20 Plaintiff’s argument that the trial must be continued because the bankruptcy court has not approved 21 Plaintiff Threets’ settlement with Defendant is meritless. On December 3, 2013 – two days before 22 Plaintiff filed his motion to continue the trial – the bankruptcy court approved Threets’ settlement. 23 See In re Threets, No. 12-36347, Dkt. No. 180 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013). 24 Regarding the dispute over the deposition of Plaintiff’s experts, the parties are ordered to 25 meet and confer in order to schedule these depositions. The depositions shall occur no later than 26 Friday, December 20, 2013. If these depositions are not scheduled, the Court will take under 27 submission Defendant’s Motion in Limine #4 and the Plaintiff’s opposition thereto. The parties 28 1 shall notify the Court as to the dates on which the deposition will occur no later than 5:00 p.m., 2 Thursday, December 12, 2013. 3 Finally, the Court notes that the parties have failed to comply with the Court’s Civil Pretrial 4 Instructions regarding the filing of a joint exhibit list. Specifically, the parties have failed to file an 5 exhibit list that (1) is joint and (2) that briefly states a party’s objection to the exhibits and the 6 responses to those objections. The parties have also failed to file the required joint statement in 7 which each side identifies 15 exhibits for which it seeks evidentiary rulings in advance. 8 Accordingly, the parties are ordered as follows: • By end of day Friday, December 6, 2013, the parties shall exchange exhibit binders. 10 • No later than 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 10, 2013, the parties shall file: 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 • A joint exhibit list that complies with the Court’s Civil Pretrial Instructions. 12 • A joint statement in which each side identifies 15 of the opposing party’s 13 exhibits for which the party seeks rulings on objections in advance of trial. 14 These may be, for example, exhibits that the party believes are critical to the 15 case (if admitted or not admitted) or an exhibit that the party believes are 16 representative of other exhibits. This joint statement shall include a brief 17 argument, with citation to authority, as to why the party finds the exhibit 18 objectionable with a brief response from the opposing party, again with 19 citation to authority. 20 For the parties’ reference, the Court’s Civil Pretrial Instructions may be found at 21 22 This order disposes of Docket No. 566. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: December 6, 2013 26 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?