Duste v. Chevron Products Company, Inc.

Filing 69

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/3/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 Northern District of California 6 7 RICHARD A DUSTE, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 No. C 08-03980 MEJ ORDER RE LEAVE TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF AND SUPPORTING AUTHORITY CHEVRON PRODUCTS CO, 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Defendant. _____________________________________/ During trial on October 3, 2011, Defendant raised an objection to comments made in 13 Plaintiff’s opening statement regarding the scope of his damages. The Court heard argument from 14 the parties and issued a ruling sustaining Defendant’s objection, thereby limiting Plaintiff to 15 presenting evidence regarding his damages resulting from the alleged slanderous statement only, 16 which is consistent with Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3, which Plaintiff did not oppose. 17 Plaintiff, however, argued that certain evidence would be excluded by the Court’s ruling that is also 18 relevant to showing damages resulting from the alleged slander and ratification by Chevron. 19 To ensure that the parties have a full and fair opportunity to argue this issue, the Court will 20 permit the parties to each file a brief – no more than 5 pages in length – setting forth their positions 21 and supporting legal authority, including citations to prior Orders and submissions from the parties 22 and any relevant exhibits in the record. Counsel shall e-file the briefs no later than 8:00 a.m. on 23 October 4, 2011. The Court will hear argument from counsel at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom D. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: October 3, 2011 27 28 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge

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?