FSP Stallion 1, LLC et al
Filing
654
ORDER that in developing the proposed joint questionnaire, the Parties make the corrections noted in order. Additionally, the Parties are reminded that the questionnaire must fit on a single page of paper with printing on both sides to assist the Jury Administrator in canvassing the jury pool. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 12/30/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
***
8
9
FSP STALLION 1, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
10
v.
11
MICHAEL LUCE, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14
AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:08-CV-01155-PMP-PAL
ORDER
16
At the hearing conducted Wednesday, December 28, 2011, counsel for
17
Defendants submitted to the Court a proposed “Confidential Juror Questionnaire.”
18
Counsel for Plaintiffs advised the Court that they had not yet completed their
19
review of Defendants’ Proposed Juror Questionnaire, and the Parties were directed
20
to bring a proposed joint confidential juror questionnaire to the pretrial conference
21
currently scheduled for Wednesday, January 4, 2012.
The Court has reviewed Defendants’ Proposed Questionnaire and finds the
22
23
majority of the questions proposed to be unobjectionable, and indeed typical of
24
voir dire questions the Court would generally pose to prospective jurors. The
25
following, however, are deemed inappropriate by the Court and will not be
26
permitted on the questionnaire or during the jury selection process:
Question Nos. 13, 14, 25, 27, and 32.
27
28
///
1
Additionally, the Court finds Question No. 17 to be potentially vague and
2
confusing. It is unclear whether counsel are seeking from prospective jurors
3
information concerning “significant financial losses” or other “significant losses”
4
within the past five (5) years.
5
Similarly, Question No. 31 inappropriately focuses only on Defendant
6
William “Billy” Walters. Question No. 31 is unnecessary, as the Court will in its
7
general voir dire inquire of all prospective jurors whether they have read or heard
8
anything about this litigation or any of the participating Plaintiffs and Defendants
9
(including Mr. Walters).
10
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that in developing the proposed joint
11
questionnaire, the Parties make the corrections noted by the Court above.
12
Additionally, the Parties are reminded that the questionnaire must fit on a single
13
page of paper with printing on both sides to assist the Jury Administrator in
14
canvassing the jury pool.
15
16
DATED: December 30, 2011.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge
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?