Phillip v. Coffee County, Tennessee et al

Filing 79

ORDER - The parties failed to appropriately confer and file jointly proposed jury instructions as required in the Courts Amended Scheduling Order. The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer in person in good faith in sufficien t time to meet the deadline set herein, including resolution of as many disagreements regarding the submissions as possible. The parties are further ORDERED to jointly submit the proposed jury instructions and verdict forms by no later than NOON on August 23, 2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 8/18/21. (CNC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT WINCHESTER
PHILLIP ROBERTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN CARROLL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:18-cv-04-SKL

ORDER
The parties failed to appropriately confer and file jointly proposed jury instructions as
required in the Court’s Amended Scheduling Order [Doc. 69]. Instead, the parties filed separately
proposed jury instructions/verdict forms and Defendants dispute that a good faith conferral even
took place allegedly through no fault of their own [Doc. 74 & Doc. 77]. Any such blatant disregard
of the Court’s requirements is sanctionable and will not be tolerated. Regardless of the fingerpointing, it appears the parties have not made a nearly sufficient good faith effort to jointly propose
jury instructions/verdict forms in a case where disputed instructions should be few and far between.
The Court will give the parties one final opportunity to comply with the Court’s requirements for
submitting jointly proposed jury instructions/verdict forms before the Court resorts to possible
sanctions.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer in person in good faith in
sufficient time to meet the deadline set herein, including resolution of as many disagreements
regarding the submissions as possible. The parties are specifically ORDERED to confer in person
or by telephone (not solely by email) in good faith about a joint proposal for jury
instructions/verdict forms and, before submitting proposed jury instructions/verdict forms, the

Case 4:18-cv-00004-SKL Document 79 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 472

parties MUST attempt to resolve any disagreements. If not all instructions are submitted
jointly, the parties must include a certification that they have conferred in good faith with the
opposing side in an effort to resolve any disputed instructions.
As Plaintiff has requested punitive damages, the parties are INSTRUCTED to discuss
whether any party will be seeking bifurcation of the trial to address punitive damages, and whether
the parties are in agreement regarding possible bifurcation. If in agreement, the parties should
submit two sets of jury instructions and two verdict forms to address each phase of the trial. If the
parties do not reach agreement regarding possible bifurcation or if the Court eventually rules in
favor of bifurcation (either sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) or upon motion), the parties will
be required to resubmit the proposed instructions/verdict forms to address bifurcated trial phases.
The parties are further ORDERED to jointly submit the proposed jury instructions and
verdict forms by no later than NOON on August 23, 2021. Said submission must be in full
compliance with the requirements of Local Rule 51.1. The Court uses the Sixth Circuit Criminal
Pattern Jury Instructions as its model in formulating the final instructions given to the jury;
therefore, all proposed jury instructions should follow the format of the pattern instructions to the
extent possible.
As further clarification of the Court’s requirements, the parties are ORDERED to submit
a single set of proposed jury instructions for each phase of the trial, both via one ECF filing and in
a Word document via e-mail sent to [e-mail]. In the event agreement
cannot be reached on a particular instruction, the parties are ORDERED to submit alternate
versions of the instruction—side by side—with (1) citations to authority in support of their
respective proposals and (2) citations to any argument/authority they contend disputes their
opponent’s position—with respect to each non-jointly submitted proposed instruction. If only one
2

Case 4:18-cv-00004-SKL Document 79 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 473

version of an instruction is submitted, the Court will assume that it is agreed upon by all the parties
unless the above instructions are followed and an alternate version or request not to instruct the
jury on that subject (also with supporting authority) is included in the jointly proposed instructions.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 4:18-cv-00004-SKL Document 79 Filed 08/18/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 474