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)

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-