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)
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?