Hunt v. Continental Casualty Company

Filing 239

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 11/13/2015. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SUSAN HUNT,

Case No. 13-cv-05966-HSG

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED
JURY INSTRUCTIONS

9
10

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On October 29, 2015, the parties separately filed what appears to be an unfinalized set of

14

revised proposed jury instructions. See Dkt. Nos. 233, 234. Defendant states that it “has not had

15

sufficient opportunity to review [the filed set of revised proposed jury instructions], and cannot

16

confirm that it represents [Defendant’s] positions.” Dkt. No. 234. Once again, the parties have

17

failed to jointly file a document, in violation of the Court’s order. See Dkt. No. 214. When the

18

Court orders a document to be filed jointly, the Court expects the parties to meet and confer, come

19

to an agreement, and make a truly joint filing. Any unresolved disputes regarding particular

20

proposed jury instructions should be fully framed in the filing itself. Separately filed statements

21

attaching email exchanges detailing the parties’ disputes do not meet this requirement, and the

22

Court views such filings as entirely unhelpful. It is the parties’ responsibility to reach agreement

23

where possible and to clearly frame any remaining genuine disputes, not the Court’s responsibility

24

to sift through a hodgepodge of filings in which the parties disclaim any ability even to confirm

25

what has or has not been agreed upon. The parties are directed, again, to meet and confer and file

26

a jointly agreed upon set of revised proposed jury instructions by November 18, 2015.

27

//

28

//

1

Additionally, on October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed “her understanding of what the parties

2

have agreed upon after further meeting and conferring regarding the joint proposed voir dire

3

questions.” Dkt. No. 235. If Defendant does not agree that Plaintiff’s filing reflects the parties’

4

joint proposed voir dire questions (and objections), the parties shall meet and confer and jointly

5

file any revised proposed voir dire questions by November 18, 2015.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2015

8
________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2