Wilson v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. et al

Filing 69

ORDER rejecting proposed pretrial order and continuing pretrial conference. Revised Proposed Pretrial Order due by 8/8/2011. The Final Pretrial Conference currently set for 7/11/2011 at 11:00 AM is continued to 8/15/2011 11:00 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge M. James Lorenz. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 7/6/2011.(mtb)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GLEN WILSON, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendant. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 08cv2061-L(JMA) ORDER REJECTING PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER AND CONTINUING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 16 17 In this disability discrimination action the parties lodged a proposed Pretrial Conference 18 Order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(6). For the reasons which follow, the proposed 19 pretrial order is REJECTED and the final pretrial conference is CONTINUED. 20 As required by Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(6)(c), the proposed pretrial order includes two 21 sections, one for issues of fact and one for issues of law which remain to be litigated. The 22 section for issues of fact includes duplications throughout. Compare, for example, issues of fact 23 numbered 13 and 14, 15 and 18, and 16, 17, 20 and 38. (Proposed Pretrial Conference Order at 24 5-7.) Moreover the section does not appear to be organized in any logical fashion. Finally, it is 25 not clear whether issues of fact 1 through 6 are undisputed or a presented as issues to be decided 26 at trial. (Id. at 4.) 27 The section for issues of law includes several issues which are listed as issues of fact. For 28 example, issues of law one through 5 are also listed as issues of fact. (Cf. id. at 33-3with id. at 408cv2061 1 7.) Based on the foregoing, the proposed pretrial order, as drafted, does not define the issues for 2 trial in a useful manner and is therefore REJECTED. 3 Furthermore, based on the proposed pretrial order, Plaintiff intends to introduce 294 4 exhibits and Defendant intends to introduce 95. The parties together intend to call more than 30 5 witnesses. Given the issues which remain in this case (see Order filed March 28, 2011), this 6 appears excessive. 7 In light of the foregoing, the parties shall meet and confer in person to draft a new 8 proposed pretrial order and examine their proposed witness and exhibit lists with a view to 9 significantly paring them down. With respect to the exhibits, the parties are also encouraged to 10 resolve any admissibility issues which may be susceptible to resolution ahead of time, such as, 11 for example, authenticity and business records exception. In the revised exhibit list, the parties 12 shall not include multiple documents in the same exhibit; and they must follow Civil Local Rule 13 16.1(f)(6)(c)(VII). 14 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 15 1. The proposed pretrial order dated June 30, 2011 is hereby REJECTED. 16 2. The parties shall meet and confer in person to prepare a revised proposed pretrial order 17 in compliance with Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(6)(c) and this order. 18 3. No later than August 8, 2011, Plaintiff shall deliver to chambers three copies of a fully 19 executed revised proposed pretrial order. 20 4. The final pretrial conference currently set on this court’s calendar for July 11, 2011 at 21 11:00 a.m. is hereby CONTINUED to August 15, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 DATED: July 6, 2011 24 M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge 25 COPY TO: 26 HON. JAN M. ADLER 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 2 08cv2061

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?