Bryant v Madison Management Services, LLC, et al

Filing 77

ORDER REJECTING ECF No. 76 Joint Pretrial Order. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/27/2024. Signed by Judge Cristina D. Silva on 2/5/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2
3
4 Lisa A. Bryant,

Plaintiff

5
6

Case No. 2:20-cv-00594-CDS-EJY

v.

7 Madison Management Services, LLC, et al.,
8

Order Rejecting Proposed
Joint Pretrial Order
[ECF No. 76]

Defendants

9
10

Plaintiff Lisa Bryant and defendants Madison Management Services, LLC and Waldman

11 & Porras PLLC submitted a proposed joint pretrial order (ECF No. 76) which does not comply
12 with Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4. I therefore reject it.
13

The parties’ proposed order provides a joint list of exhibits on which the parties have

14 agreed can be admitted at trial. See ECF No. 76 at 8–9. However, the parties fail to fully comport
15 with Local Rule 16-3(b)(8), which requires them to “list those exhibits to which objection is
16 made and state the grounds for the objection.” LR 16-3(b)(8) (emphasis added). Defendants
17 provide only identify two “exhibits,”, and simply state: “[a]ll documents obtained during
18 discovery” and “[a]ny documents turned over or subpoenaed by any witness,” id. at 9, without
19 stating the grounds for any objection. These vague descriptions do not “describe the exhibits
20 sufficiently ready for identification” as required by the local rules. LR 16-3(b)(8). Under
21 “Plaintiff’s Exhibits,” there is an empty indented subsection. ECF No. 76 at 9. It is unclear to the
22 court whether Bryant inadvertently left the list blank or intended to represent that she will not
23 be introducing any exhibits beyond the stipulated list.
24
25
26

1

Accordingly, the parties are ordered to file a second proposed joint pretrial order.

2 Therein defendants must list with specificity any exhibits beyond the stipulated list that they
3 intend to introduce, to which Bryant may lodge her objection thereto, and Bryant must
4 specifically represent that she intends to use no exhibits beyond the stipulated list, or identify
5 with specificity her exhibits, to which defendants may lodge any objection thereto.
6

Further, Local Rule 16-3(b)(10) requires parties to identify the depositions they intend to

7 offer at trial, “designating the portions of the deposition to be offered.” The parties’ proposed
8 order ignores this rule by listing identical depositions without designating the specific portions
9 to be offered at trial. ECF No. 76 at 10. And, both sides’ seemingly identical witness lists appear
10 to identify every person who has been identified in discovery, without any analysis as to
11 whether those witnesses are truly needed at trial. Id. at 10–12. Indeed, the parties’ lists include
12 “Lynne VanHoozen (Deceased).” Id. at 11–12. Yet, neither party represented that they intend to
13 offer the deposition of Lynne VanHoozen at trial. At a minimum, the parties are instructed to
14 remove the deceased individual from the witness list in the second proposed joint pretrial 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. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the
17 parties’ joint pretrial order [ECF No. 76] is REJECTED. The parties must submit a second
18 proposed joint pretrial order which complies with the Local Rules by February 27, 2024.
19

Dated: February 5, 2024

20

_________________________________
Cristina D. Silva
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26

2