Rodriguez et al v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al

Filing 588

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE (DOC. NO. 586 ); ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 9/9/10. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receiv e electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

Rodriguez et al v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al

Doc. 588

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII STEPHANIE RODRIGUEZ; SAMUEL OYOLA-PEREZ; JULIUS RIGGINS; and NILDA MEYER, Individually and as personal representative of the estate of Wilfredo Dayandante ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) vs. ) GENERAL DYNAMICS ARMAMENT AND ) TECHNICAL PRODUCTS, INC., et ) ) al., ) ) Defendants. _____________________________ ) CIVIL NO. 08-00189 SOM/BMK ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE (DOC. NO. 586); ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE (DOC. NO. 586); ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS On August 30, 2010, Defendant General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, Inc. ("GDATP") asked the court to supplement its proposed juror questionnaire. that request, stating: At this late date, it is difficult to include substantive additions proposed by counsel. Such matters would require further discussion and might have been possible had counsel voiced their proposals earlier instead of waiting to react to the court-initiated questionnaire addressed to availability issues. The court here declines to add the additional questions proposed by Defendants. This court denied

Dockets.Justia.com

See Minute Order (August 31, 2010) (Doc. No. 579). On September 8, 2010, GDATP submitted a request for this court to require potential jurors to answer the identical questions on the morning they report for jury service. The court

notes that many of GDATP's proposed questions will be asked by the court in the course of normal voir dire. Other questions

proposed by GDATP would require much discussion and almost certain objections from other parties. For those reasons, the

court declines to require potential jurors to answer the proposed supplemental juror questionnaire. The court recognizes that it has experienced litigators representing the parties in this matter. For that reason, unless

it is impracticable, the court requires the parties to meet and confer regarding any and all issues that may be raised to this court from this day forward. Only if the parties cannot agree on

an issue may a party file a motion with this court seeking relief. All future motions must contain a representation as to

the other side's position on an issue or an explanation as to why it was impracticable to obtain the other side's position as to the issue. The parties are further ordered to meet and confer as to whether an agreement can be reached as to any pending motion, including motions in limine. No later than September 30, 2010,

the parties shall submit to the court a report detailing their 2

discussions and explaining whether an agreement has been reached as to any motion pending before this court. If an agreement has

been reached, the parties should immediately submit a proposed stipulation and the corresponding motion should be withdrawn. As used in this order, "meet and confer" requires a live discussion. The parties may comply with the "meet and

confer" requirements contained in this order by meeting in person or by having discussions via telephone, teleconference, or videoconference. Merely sending letters, facsimiles, or emails

will not satisfy the "meet and confer" requirements of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 9, 2010.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway Susan Oki Mollway United States District Judge

Rodriguez v. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, Inc., Civ. No. 08-00189 SOM/BMK; ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE (DOC.
NO. 586); ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS

3