Felix v. CSAA General Insurance Company
Filing
38
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 37 the parties' Joint Pretrial Order is REJECTED. The parties shall personally confer as required in Local Rule 16-3, and submit a Joint Pretrial Order that complies with Local Rule 16-4 by 5/14/18. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/1/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
***
4
BLANCA FELIX,
5
Plaintiff,
6
7
8
Case No. 2:15-cv-02498-APG-NJK
v.
ORDER REJECTING JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER
CSAA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
9
10
The parties’ proposed Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 37) does not comply with Local
11
Rules 16-3 and 16-4. For example, in their respective exhibit lists, the parties state that they
12
“have yet to formally stipulate as to foundation for any exhibits at this time, but reserve the right
13
to do so at a later date.” ECF No. 37 at 5. Local Rule 16-3(b)(8) requires parties to list their trial
14
exhibits, rather than reserving their right to do so at some other time. And because no exhibits are
15
listed, neither side can object to the other’s proposed exhibits, as required by Local Rule 16-
16
3(b)(8)(B).
Further, both parties (particularly the defendant) list what appears to be every witness
17
18
identified in discovery. Id. at 7-13. While the plaintiff’s list includes 19 witnesses, the
19
defendant’s list includes 41. Despite these voluminous lists, the parties insist that the trial will
20
last only five to seven days. Id. at 13. That is nearly impossible. The parties (or at least the
21
defendant) apparently have not bothered to think about the witnesses they actually intend to use at
22
trial.
23
Both parties’ witness lists include several “Person Most Knowledgeable” witnesses. The
24
parties should know by now the names of the witnesses they intend to present at trial. If those
25
witnesses were not identified during discovery, they cannot be called at trial.
26
27
28
1
The defendant has listed several deposition transcripts it intends to use at trial, but it does
2
not designate the portions of those transcripts it will use, as required by Local Rule 16-3(b)(10).
3
This makes it impossible for the plaintiff to object as required by Local Rule 16-3(b)(11).
4
Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4 are designed to streamline trial preparation and presentation,
5
and to foster settlement. The parties cannot simply wait to make trial decisions until the eve of
6
trial. If they do, they cannot conduct effective settlement discussions. It is apparent from the
7
proposed Joint Pretrial Order that the parties ignored the spirit, purpose, and language of Local
8
Rule 16-3. The proposed order will be rejected. The parties shall submit a new proposed joint
9
order addressing these identified problems and complying with Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4.
10
IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 37) is REJECTED. The
11
parties shall personally confer as required in Local Rule 16-3, and submit a Joint Pretrial Order
12
that complies with Local Rule 16-4 by May 14, 2018.
13
DATED this 1st day of May, 2018.
14
15
16
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 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?