Hurst v. Buczek Enterprises, LLC

Filing 76

ORDER RE PARTIES' PRETRIAL FILINGS. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 06/25/2012. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

BRAD HURST,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER RE PARTIES’ PRETRIAL
FILINGS OF JUNE 19, 2012

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-11-1379 EMC

BUCZEK ENTERPRISES, LLC,

12

Defendant.
___________________________________/

13
14
15
16

The Court is in receipt of the parties' pretrial filings of June 19, 2012. Upon review of their
materials, the Court notes certain problems with the parties' filings.

17

First, this Court's Case Management Scheduling Order requires the parties, before filing their

18

exhibit lists with the Court, to “meet and confer, in person, to consider exhibit numbers, to eliminate

19

duplicate exhibits and confusion over exhibits, and to make a good faith effort to stipulate to

20

admissibility.

21

authenticity and foundation absent a legitimate (not tactical) objection.” Docket No. 18 at 5 ¶ 7

22

(emphasis added). The parties’ exhibit list does not comply with the Court's order, as it lists blanket

23

objections to, e.g., authenticity, even for documents produced by the objecting party. See Docket No.

24

66, App. B. The fact that virtually every exhibit on the list contains the same blanket objections

25

indicates that the parties have failed to meet and confer in good faith to eliminate unnecessary

26

objections, as well as to stipulate to foundation, authenticity, and use of copies to the extent possible.

27
28

If stipulation is not possible, the parties shall make every effort to stipulate to

1

Therefore, the parties are directed to meet and confer in person and file a new exhibit list in

2

compliance with the Court's order no later than Wednesday, June 27, at 5 p.m. Any insistence on

3

objections to, e.g., authenticity that prove to be meritless will be subject to sanctions. As to other bases

4

for objections, the parties should take into account those documents used to show state of mind or

5

knowledge as well as party admissions, and revise the exhibit list to remove those disputes that can be

6

resolved. In addition, the revised list should more clearly state the purpose for which each exhibit is

7

proposed and the proponent's response to the objections. If the parties cannot narrow the number of

8

objections, each side shall choose the 15 objections on which they each want the Court to rule before

9

trial, which will serve as guidance for all other objections.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Second, the parties’ proposed jury instructions do not comply with the Court’s order.
Specifically, the Court stated:

12

17

If disputed, each version of the instruction shall be inserted together, back to back, in
their logical place in the overall sequence. A disputed instruction shall be identified as
“Disputed Instruction No. ____ re ____________________ offered by __________,”
with the blanks filled in as appropriate. All disputed versions of the same basic
instruction shall bear the same number. If a party does not have a counter-version and
simply contends that no such instruction in any version should be given, then that party
should so state on a separate page inserted in lieu of an alternate version. Each party
should support its version of a disputed instruction, and/or oppose the version offered
by the opposing party, with a brief argument and citation to any relevant authority. The
argument and citation should be provided immediately following the disputed
instructions. The parties are encouraged to keep disputed instructions to a minimum.

18

Case Management Scheduling Order at 7 ¶ 3 (emphasis added). Many of the parties’ disputed

19

instructions contain little or no helpful argument in support of and in opposition to the instruction. See,

20

e.g., Disputed Instruction No. 27 (containing no argument from either side); No. 28 (containing

21

argument from only one side). These are simply two examples. In addition, it is not clear which, if any,

22

of the disputed instructions have been offered as alternatives to each other or merely as additional

23

disputed instructions to which the opposing party has no alternative. As the order instructs, alternative

24

instructions should be labeled with the same number (e.g., No. 28A and 28B). It is also unclear what

25

the notation “Special Instruction” means. Finally, the parties do not appear to have made a good faith

26

effort to resolve disputed instructions.

27

///

28

///

13
14
15
16

2

1

Accordingly, the parties are directed to meet and confer in person and file a new set of proposed

2

jury instructions in compliance with the Court's order no later than Wednesday, June 27, at 5 p.m. The

3

parties are directed to make a good faith effort to resolve disputed instructions to the extent possible.

4

Where the parties are unable to resolve their disputes, they should so indicate and support their version

5

of a disputed instruction, and/or oppose the version offered by the opposing party, with a brief argument

6

and citation to any relevant authority.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: June 25, 2012

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

3