O'Toole et al v. City of Antioch et al

Filing 223

ORDER re trial exhibits and verdict form. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 9/30/2015. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SEAN O'TOOLE, et al.,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 11-cv-01502-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

ORDER RE TRIAL EXHIBITS AND
VERDICT FORM

CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

On November 24, 2014, the court issued a case management and pretrial order

14

requiring the parties to file certain pretrial documents no later than 28 days before the

15

pretrial conference (i.e., no later than September 10, 2015). See Dkt. 96 at 3. The order

16

also required the parties to submit two sets of exhibits to the Clerk’s Office. See id.

17

The September 10 deadline was ultimately continued to September 14, though the

18

court made clear that “[n]o further modification to this deadline will be considered.” See

19

Dkt. 181. Despite the court’s clear instruction, the parties failed to meet the September

20

14 deadline. The next day, the court issued an order making clear that all documents

21

must be filed by September 15, “or the parties risk having their papers stricken

22

and disregarded.” See Dkt. 198. The order also stated that the court would “consider

23
24
25
26
27
28

sanctions for any future late filings.” Id.
While most of the pretrial documents were submitted, the parties failed to submit
their exhibits to the Clerk’s Office. As of today, over two weeks past the September 14
deadline, the exhibits still have not been submitted. While the court understands that the
exhibit list has now been modified in light of the partial settlement reached in this case,
the parties have offered no justification for failing to submit any of the exhibits.

1

Ac
ccordingly, the court or
t
rders the pa
arties to sub
bmit two se of exhib to the C
ets
bits
Clerk’s

2

Off
fice no later than 4:00 p.m. on October 1, 2
0
O
2015. Failu to do so may result in
ure
o

3

sanctions.

4

Additio
onally, desp the court’s clear in
pite
nstructions t
that the dea
adlines wou not be
uld

5

rther modifie that the parties ran the risk of having an future lat filings str
ed,
e
n
f
ny
te
ricken and
fur

6

dis
sregarded, and that the court wou conside sanctions the Antioc defenda
a
e
uld
er
s,
ch
ants still did

7

not file a prop
posed verdict form, nor have they offered an explanation or justif
y
ny
fication for

8

the failure to do so over the past tw weeks. Although t court is inclined to find that
eir
o
wo
the
s
o

9

def
fendants ha waived their right to submit a proposed verdict form it will consider their
ave
d
m,
r

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

pro
oposed verd form if it is filed by 4:00 p.m. on Octobe 1, 2015.
dict
y
.
er
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Septe
ember 30, 2015
2
__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2