Rose v. Plastikon Ind.

Filing 53

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER re 45 Second MOTION in Limine to Preclude Admission of Evidence Regarding Damages filed by Plastikon Ind., 44 First MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence that is Unrelated to Rose's Employment Discrimination Complaint filed by Plastikon Ind., 47 Third MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence that Plaintiff Failed to Disclose filed by Plastikon Ind.. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 20, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2011)

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7

WILLIE ROSE III,

8
9

PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES, INC.,

14
15

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

Defendant.
/

12
13

No. C 10-04355 WHA

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

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 9, 2012, at 7:30 A.M.. However,

16

the trial date will be postponed if a large criminal trial before the undersigned judge begins as

17

scheduled on January 4, 2012.

18

2.

Defendant Plastikon is limited to the witnesses and exhibits disclosed in its

19

proposed final pretrial order. Plaintiff Rose is limited to the witnesses disclosed in his initial

20

disclosures because he failed to file a final pretrial order. Plaintiff Rose is limited to the

21

exhibits that he gives a copy of to defendant’s counsel at 4309 Hacienda Drive, Suite 350,

22

Pleasanton, CA 94588-2746, by 11:00 A.M ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2011. As warned by

23

the Court at the pretrial conference, any exhibits that are not given to defendant’s counsel by

24

that time shall be excluded at trial. Plaintiff Rose is already in violation of the Federal Rules for

25

not filing his final pretrial order and attaching a list of exhibits.

26

3.

A jury of EIGHT PERSONS shall be used.

27

4.

Each side shall have SIX HOURS to examine witnesses (counting direct

28

examination, cross-examination, re-direct examination, re-cross examination, etc.).

1

Opening statements and closing arguments shall not count against the limit. Opening

2

statements are limited to 30 MINUTES. If, despite being efficient, non-duplicative, and

3

non-argumentative in the use of the allotted time, one side runs out of time and it would be a

4

miscarriage of justice to hold that side to the limit, then more time will be allotted.

5

5.

The parties shall follow the Court’s current Guidelines for Trial and

6

Final Pretrial Conference, separately provided and available on the Internet at

7

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, which guidelines are incorporated as part of this order.

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1
This is DENIED. The pleading goes beyond “failure to promote.”
DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
While the $2.5 million figure is baseless, this motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks to

13

prevent plaintiff from testifying to the type of damages that would normally flow from the

14

alleged discrimination/retaliation, such as loss of wages, pain from being shoved, etc.

15

DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3

16

Plastikon moves, pursuant to FRCP 37, to preclude all evidence, testimony, and

17

references offered by Rose that was not disclosed pursuant to FRCP 26 or during his deposition.

18

Plastikon’s request is broad, vague, and unwarranted at this time. As the undersigned judge

19

becomes more familiar with the facts, certain evidence and testimony may be excluded at trial if

20

it was not properly disclosed and the nondisclosure is not harmless and not substantially

21

justified.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: December 20, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2