Moser v. Ballard et al
Filing
26
ORDER Rejecting 25 Second Joint Pretrial Order. Third Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/24/2022. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 3/8/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 CHARLES MOSER,
4
5
v.
Case No. 2:17-cv-01704-APG-NJK
Plaintiff,
ORDER REJECTING SECOND
PROPOSED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER
DEVIN BALLARD, PATRICK NEVILLE,
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
6 DEPARTMENT,
7
[ECF No. 25]
Defendants.
8
9
The parties have filed a second proposed joint pretrial order (ECF No. 25) that, like its
10 predecessor, violates Local Rule 16-3(b)(8). While the parties have now included their lists of
11 exhibits and objections, it appears the defendants have simply listed almost every document
12 produced in this case (except those marked LVMPD-Moser 000224-329). And the parties’
13 objections are not tied to the specific exhibits as required by the Local Rules. Thus, it is
14 impossible to determine how to rule on those objections. I therefore reject the proposed order.
15
The requirements set forth in Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4 are designed to streamline trial
16 preparation and presentation, and to foster settlement. The parties cannot simply wait to make
17 trial decisions until the eve of trial. If they do, they cannot fully participate in settlement
18 discussions. The defendants are ordered to review their exhibits to determine whether all of
19 them are reasonably necessary at trial. Then, each side is to list its objections to the specific
20 exhibit being objected to. The parties shall submit a joint pretrial order that complies with the
21 Local Rules by March 24, 2022. The failure to do so may result in dismissal of claims and
22 defenses, and sanctions against parties and counsel.
23
DATED THIS 8th day of March, 2022.
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?