Impey v. Office Depot, Inc.

Filing 211

SECOND ORDER FOLLOWING PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 08/22/2011. (kns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DANIEL IMPEY, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff, No. C-09-01973 EDL 12 v. SECOND ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 13 THE OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 14 Defendant. 15 _______________________________/ 16 17 Following the August 9, 2011 pretrial conference in this case, the Court issued a pre-trial 18 Order requiring the parties to meet and confer regarding various outstanding issues. On August 12, 19 the parties updated the Court on the status of their meet and confer efforts and apprised the Court of 20 certain unresolved issues. This Order addresses those remaining issues. 21 1. Trial Schedule and Procedure: 22 • The parties submitted a jury questionnaire and modified voir dire questions. Both of these 23 submissions are acceptable, subject to minor modifications to be discussed with the parties, 24 and the Court will administer them as appropriate. The Court will administer the 25 questionnaire to potential jurors in conjunction with a hardship screen prior to September 6. 26 The parties will be required to deliver a sufficient number of copies of the questionnaire to 27 the Court in advance of this date, and will also be required to have a representative on hand 28 to make copies of the questionnaires once they are completed if the parties wish to have 1 copies for review. The parties will be notified of the date of the hardship screen and 2 questionnaire administration as soon as it is set. 3 • 4 5 The parties submitted a “Final Joint Neutral Statement of the Case” that will be read to the jury during voir dire and as part of the preliminary jury instructions. 2. 6 Witnesses and Evidentiary Exhibits: a. Plaintiff has withdrawn his Exhibits 2-3, 5, 20, 25, 27, 41-42, 156, 166-188, and 190 7 as well as the first two pages of Exhibit 163 and a portion of Exhibit 189. Plaintiff has submitted an 8 Amended Trial Exhibit List. Defendant has withdrawn its “relevance” objections to Mr. Impey’s 9 performance evaluations (Exhibits 6, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 38, 39, 134) but reserves the right to object as Plaintiff seeks to introduce them at trial. Defendant maintains its previous objections to the 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 remaining Exhibits. The Court will issue a separate Order ruling on Defendant’s remaining 12 objections. 13 b. Defendant has agreed to withdraw its Exhibits UU-WW and KKK-LLL but has not 14 yet filed a withdrawal and amended Exhibit List. Defendant shall file a withdrawal and amended 15 Exhibit List within three days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff maintains his objections to 16 Defendant’s Exhibits XX (MMPI-2 Outpatient Mental Health Report) and YY (MCMI-III Million 17 Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III Interpretive Report). The Court will issue a separate Order ruling 18 on Plaintiff’s remaining objections. 19 c. Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s designations of several portions of the 20 deposition of Cheryl Coulombe are MOOT in light of Ms. Coulombe’s agreement to appear 21 voluntarily for Plaintiff’s case on September 13 or 14. 22 3. 23 JURY INSTRUCTIONS The parties have met and conferred and come up with an agreed-upon set of jury instructions, 24 subject to a limited number of existing disagreements. The Court will issue these agreed-upon 25 instructions to the jury. The following issues remain to be resolved with respect to jury instructions: 26 • The parties disagree over whether the jury should be allowed to conduct interim 27 deliberations (modified Instruction 1.12) and pose questions of witnesses (Instruction 28 1.15). The Court finds that the latter will further the efficiency and fairness of the 2 1 trial, and Orders that Instruction 1.15 will be read to the jury as part of the 2 preliminary instructions at the outset of trial. 3 • The Court previously ordered the parties to meet and confer on a joint proposal for a 4 subset of the substantive jury instructions to be given to the jury at the beginning of 5 the trial and provide the Court with a copy of this subset of instructions. The parties 6 provided a set of preliminary instructions, but these instructions are procedural and 7 no substantive instructions were provided. The parties shall jointly notify the Court 8 of which substantive instructions they believe are appropriate to be issued at the 9 outset of trial within three days of the date of this Order. • The parties have omitted previously agreed-upon Instruction 2.11 (Expert Opinion), 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 and the Court finds that this instruction is appropriate and shall be administered to the 12 jury. 13 • The parties have omitted previously agreed-upon CACI Instruction 2433 (Wrongful 14 Discharge in Violation of Public Policy-Damages). It is unclear whether this was a 15 deliberate omission. The parties should notify the Court at their earliest convenience 16 whether they agree to instruct or not instruct the jury on this issue. 17 4. 18 the jury should contain a space to name the individual or individuals, if any, whose conduct the jury 19 believes gives rise to an award of punitive damages. The verdict form provided to the Court at this 20 time does not contain a space to name individuals. The Court will resolve this dispute prior to 21 providing the jury with a verdict form following the presentation of evidence. VERDICT FORM: There is an existing dispute over whether the verdict form provided to 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: August 22, 2011 _______________________________________ ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 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?