Spears et al v. Washington Mutual, Inc. et al

Filing 503

ORDER to meet and confer and file updated time estimate by October 15, 2014. Signed by Judge Ronald M Whyte on October 6, 2014. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 13 FELTON A. SPEARS, JR. and SIDNEY SCHOLL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 16 17 ORDER RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE Plaintiffs, 14 15 Case No. 5-08-CV-00868-RMW v. [Re Docket No. 458] FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT (a/k/a eAppraiseIT, LLC), a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant. 18 19 The court has reviewed the parties’ joint pretrial statement. Dkt. No. 458. The parties’ lists 20 of “May Call” witnesses, exhibits, designated depositions excerpts, and time estimate are 21 unreasonably long and must be substantially shortened. Plaintiff should essentially know what 22 witnesses he intends to call, the exhibits he intends to offer, and deposition excerpts he intends to 23 play or read in his case-in-chief. There should be few, if any, witnesses in the plaintiff’s case-in- 24 chief who are listed as “May Call” or exhibits that plaintiff has not yet decided on whether he will 25 offer. Defendant should be able to substantially reduce its lists based upon plaintiff’s narrowing of 26 his. 27 28 The estimate that the trial will take 110 hours, lasting from November 24, 2014 to February 6, 2015 is totally unrealistic. Dkt. No. 458 at ECF page 18. The previous time estimate was two to ORDER Case No. 8-CV-00868-RMW LM -1- three weeks. See Dkt. No. 254 at 11. That prior estimate was before the court bifurcated the issues in 2 this case, so it is especially surprising that the parties’ estimate has now increased to eight to nine 3 weeks. The parties must substantially reduce their estimate of trial time. The court will set a limit 4 for each side not including jury selection or closing argument (separate limits will be set for these). 5 The court will take into account the parties’ estimates but only if they are reasonable. Trying this 6 case over the Christmas holidays is neither realistic nor reasonable. Based on the parties’ current 7 witness lists, Dkt. No. 458-3 (Plaintiff’s list with 1 fact and 3 expert witnesses, plus “may call” 8 witnesses), Dkt. No. 458-4 (Defendant’s list with 6 experts and 7-15 fact witnesses, plus “may call” 9 witnesses), the court sees no reason why trial could not be completed within the original high end 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 estimate of three weeks, assuming that the witnesses the parties anticipate actually calling are not 11 buried in their “May Call” lists. 12 Prior to the pretrial conference set for October 16, 2014, the lead counsel for the parties shall 13 meet and confer and file by October 15, 2014 a more realistic time estimate to the court. The court 14 will discuss that time estimate with the parties at the pretrial conference. 15 SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 Dated: October 6, 2014 _________________________________ Ronald M. Whyte United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER Case No. 8-CV-00868-RMW LM -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?