Saliani v. Sam's West, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER Rejecting 36 Proposed Joint Pretrial Order. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 1/31/2022. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 1/10/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - YAW)

Case 2:20-cv-01492-APG-BNW Document 37 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ARIANNA SALIANI,
4

Plaintiff

5 v.
6 SAM’S WEST, INC., a foreign corporation
d/b/a SAM’S CLUB,
7
Defendant
8
9

Case No.: 2:20-cv-01492-APG-BNW
Order Rejecting Proposed Joint Pretrial
Order
[ECF No. 36]

The parties’ proposed Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 36) does not comply with Local

10 Rules 16-3 and 16-4. In their respective exhibit lists, each party includes what appears to be
11 every document produced during discovery. The plaintiff also lists “all documents identified
12 during discovery in this litigation,” “all pleadings filed in this case,” “all depositions including
13 exhibits,” and “all FRCP 26 disclosures.” ECF No. 36 at 9. Such blanket designations violate
14 Local Rule 16-3, which requires parties to list their trial exhibits, and “describe the exhibits
15 sufficiently for ready identification . . . .”
16

The parties’ respective exhibit lists include many of the same exhibits. Yet the parties do

17 not stipulate to the admissibility of those exhibits. If both sides intend to use the same exhibits,
18 why are they not stipulated into evidence? Local Rule 16-3(b)(8)(B) requires the parties to
19 confer about such issues and stipulate “whenever possible.” Clearly the parties have not done so.
20

The parties also list blanket objections to all listed exhibits, without linking each

21 objection to its associated exhibit. And the defendant attempts to “reserve[] any and all
22 evidentiary objections for trial.” ECF No. 36 at 10. This violates Local Rule 16-3(b)(8)(B),
23

Case 2:20-cv-01492-APG-BNW Document 37 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 2

1 which requires parties to state the ground for each objection to each exhibit. That way, the
2 parties and I can more easily resolve objections.
3

Similarly, the parties list what appears to be every witness identified during discovery.

4 The parties also list several “person[s] most knowledgeable” instead of actual names. The
5 parties should know by now who the actual witnesses will be. Any undisclosed witnesses will be
6 excluded from testifying at trial. LR 16-3(b)(12).
7

The proposed form of order does not comply with Local Rule 16-4.

8

Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4 are designed to streamline trial preparation and presentation,

9 and to foster settlement. The parties cannot wait until the eve of trial to make trial decisions.
10 Such tactics prevent full participation in settlement discussions and deprive the other side the
11 ability to efficiently prepare for trial. It is apparent from the proposed Joint Pretrial Order that
12 the parties ignored Local Rule 16-3.
13

I THEREFORE ORDER that the parties’ Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 36) is

14 REJECTED. The parties shall confer as required in Local Rule 16-3 and submit a Joint Pretrial
15 Order that complies with Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4 by January 31, 2022. Failure to do so may
16 result in sanctions against the parties and their attorneys, which may include fines and dismissal
17 of claims and defenses.
18

DATED this 10th day of January, 2022.

19
20

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23

2