Jones v. CBSJ Financial Corporation

Filing 40

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER, Motions terminated: 35 Second MOTION in Limine To Exclude Other Claims filed by CBSJ Financial Corporation, 30 Amended MOTION in Limine to Exclude Reference to Plaintiff's Attorneys Fees and Costs filed by Michele Jones, 29 MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Reference to Plaintiff's Attorneys Fees and Costs filed by Michele Jones, 34 First MOTION in Limine To Exclude Reference to Insurance filed by CBSJ Financial Corporation, [32 ] MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Reference to Other Lawsuits Filed by Plaintiff filed by Michele Jones, 31 MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Reference to Plaintiff's Character filed by Michele Jones.. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 14, 2010. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2010)

Jones v. CBSJ Financial Corporation

Doc. 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MICHELE JONES, Plaintiff, v. CBSJ FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendant. / FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER No. C 10-00226 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

FOR GOOD CAUSE and after a final pretrial conference, the Court issues the following final pretrial order: 1. This case shall go to a JURY TRIAL on JANUARY 10, 2011, at 7:30 A.M., and shall

continue until completed on the schedule discussed at the conference. The issues to be tried shall be those set forth in the joint proposed pretrial order except to the extent modified by order in limine. This final pretrial order supersedes all the complaint, answer and any counterclaims, cross-claims or third-party complaints, i.e., only the issues expressly identified for trial remain in the case. 2. follows: Plaintiff's motion in limine 1 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion in limine 2 is GRANTED ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING EXTENT: Defendant shall not question plaintiff regarding her debts or discuss such potential testimony in opening Rulings on the motions in limine, as stated at the pretrial conference, are as

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

statements unless plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel open the door to it by presenting a dispute over the number of times she was called by defendant. Plaintiff's motion in limine 3 is GRANTED ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING EXTENT: Defendant shall not question plaintiff regarding other claims made by her or discuss such potential testimony in opening statements unless plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel open the door to it by presenting a dispute over the number of times she was called by defendant. Defendant's motion in limine 1 is GRANTED. Defendant's motion in limine 2 in GRANTED ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING EXTENT: If defendant presents a defense that it had bona fide reasons for calling plaintiff the number of times that it did, plaintiff may put into evidence instances of a verdict or summary judgment in favor of a claim made against defendant for violation of any laws having to do with the number and/or frequency of harassing phone calls made by defendant. Plaintiff shall not present such evidence in opening statements, and shall proffer such evidence to the undersigned before its introduction in front of the jury. 3. Except for good cause, each party is limited to the witnesses and exhibits disclosed

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

in the joint proposed final pretrial order less any excluded or limited by an order in limine. Materials or witnesses used solely for impeachment need not be disclosed and may be used, subject to the rules of evidence. 4. The stipulations of facts set forth in the joint proposed final pretrial order are

approved and binding on all parties. 5. 6. A jury of EIGHT PERSONS shall be used. Each side shall have TWO AND ONE HALF HOURS to examine witnesses (counting

direct examination, cross-examination, re-direct examination, re-cross examination, etc.). Opening statements and closing arguments shall not count against the limit. If, despite being efficient, non-duplicative, and non-argumentative in the use of the allotted time, one side runs out of time and it would be a miscarriage of justice to hold that side to the limit, then more time will be allotted.

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7.

The parties shall follow the Court's current Guidelines for Trial and Final Pretrial

Conference, separately provided and available on the Internet at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, which guidelines are incorporated as part of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2010.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3