PRETRIAL ORDER

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

Timothy Grismore and Xavier Hines contend they were wrongfully targeted due to their race by Bakersfield police officers, who stopped and detained them on December 5, 2016. The plaintiffs contend the defendants violated their civil rights arising under federal and state laws through an unlawful arrest and actions taken during their arrest. The defendants deny all wrongdoing, and assert the plaintiffs' civil rights were not violated by the officers.

A. JURISDICTION/VENUE

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and supplemental jurisdiction for Plaintiff's claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In addition, the events that gave rise to this action occurred in Bakersfield, California. Accordingly, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in Bakersfield. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

B. JURY TRIAL

The parties demanded a jury trial in this matter. (See Doc. 63 at 2)

C. UNDISPUTED FACTS

1. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs' claims herein arise out of an incident that took place in the City of Bakersfield, State of California, and within this judicial district.

2. The City of Bakersfield maintains, operates and controls the Bakersfield Police Department.

D. DISPUTED FACTS

Plaintiffs' Disputed Facts

1. Whether Plaintiffs were subjected to excessive force;

2. Whether the Defendant officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Plaintiffs;

3. Whether the Defendant officers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs;

4. Whether the Defendant officers treated Plaintiffs unequally on account of their race;

5. Whether the Defendant officers' actions were motivated by retaliatory animus, regardless of whether their actions were supported by probable cause;

6. Whether the Defendant officers conspired to interfere with Plaintiffs' civil rights;

7. Whether a substantial motivating reason for the Defendant officers' conduct was Plaintiffs' race under the Ralph Act;

8. Whether the Defendant officers specifically intended to violate the Plaintiffs' rights, or whether their conduct was otherwise sufficiently aggravated or egregious, to warrant enhanced statutory remedies under the Bane Act.

9. Whether any of the Defendants integrally participated in or failed to intervene in the unconstitutional conduct of the others;

10. The nature and extent of Plaintiffs' damages, both past and future; and

11. Whether punitive damages should be imposed and, if so, the amount;

Defendants' Disputed Facts:

1. Whether Plaintiffs were walking in the street or on the sidewalk when Officers Melendez and Luevano initially saw them;

2. Whether Plaintiffs complied with commands given by the Defendant Officers;

3. Whether Defendants Melendez and Luevano had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop Plaintiffs;

4. Whether Defendants Melendez and Luevano had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain Plaintiffs;

5. Whether Defendants Melendez and Luevano had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search Plaintiffs;

6. Whether Defendants Melendez and Luevano had probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs;

7. Whether Officer Luevano used the term "boy" in reference to Mr. Hines and if so, whether the term is a racial slur;

8. Whether Mr. Hines and/or Mr. Grismore complied with or refused to comply with commands given by the Defendant officers;

9. Whether it was reasonable for Officer Luevano to display his taser;

10. Whether the use of force by each of the Defendant Officers was reasonable;

11. Whether the conduct of Defendant Luevano and/or Defendant Melendez was motivated by racial animus;

12. Whether the conduct of Defendant Luevano and/or Defendant Melendez was in retaliation for Mr. Grismore and/or Mr. Hines' exercise of free speech; and

13. Whether the Defendant Officers conspired together to violate the Plaintiffs' civil rights.

E. DISPUTED LEGAL ISSUES

None.

F. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

Both parties intend to file motions in limine regarding the evidence to be used at trial. Counsel SHALL conduct a meaningful meet-and-confer process to limit the motions to only those that are necessary to file.

Plaintiffs' Expected Motions:

1. To exclude all infomation not known to the officers at the time of the incident or outside the time frame of the incident. The category involves a number of distinct subcategories, and may be the subject of one or several motions, including with respect to:

a. Subsequent contacts between Plaintiffs and law enforcement, including subsequent encounters between Xavier Hines and campus police;

b. Prior or subsequent conduct by Plaintiffs, including Timothy Grismore's alleged conduct at the hospital on the night of the incident and Xavier Hines' alleged subsequent conduct at CSU Bakersfield (this category would include, without limitation, any testimony by Defendants' proposed witnesses Frederick Reyes, M. Gonzalez, Steve Holmes, and Don Williams, who propose to testify as to contact with Xavier Hines outside the time frame of the incident);

c. Plaintiffs' academic records, enrollment history, and grades. This motion is GRANTED except to the extent that the evidence related to their enrollment at the time of the incident may be introduced.

2. To exclude any reference to specific criminal acts by any person other than Plaintiffs, including alleged conduct by gang members prior to the detention and arrest of Plaintiffs, or other examples of citizens or officers being threatened or hurt by persons other than Plaintiffs.

3. To limit testimony about the officers' subjective states of mind, beliefs, or fears.

4. To exclude certain opinions and testimony by Defendants' police practices expert.

5. Plaintiffs may file a motion regarding the qualified immunity and comparative negligence defenses, to establish how these defenses will (and will not) be handled at trial and in front of the jury.

6. To exclude any references to drugs or marijuana.

7. To exclude or limit appeals to passions or prejudices in favor of police officers. This motion is GRANTED.

Defendants' Expected Motions:

1. To exclude reference to the Bakersfield Police Department or its officers as the "deadliest police force in America" and/or the use of such other inflammatory terms. This motion is GRANTED.

2. To exclude any reference to any settlement reached on behalf of any of Defendants in any other case. This motion is GRANTED unless for purposes of impeachment. In that event, the Court SHALL be alerted before this evidence is used outside the presence of the jury.

3. To exclude any alleged statistics regarding the use of force or deadly force by the Bakersfield Police Department. This motion is GRANTED unless for purposes of impeachment. In that event, the Court SHALL be alerted before this evidence is used outside the presence of the jury.

4. To exclude any reference to the recent report issued by the ACLU. This motion is GRANTED unless for purposes of impeachment. In that event, the Court SHALL be alerted before this evidence is used outside the presence of the jury.

5. To exclude any reference that the City of Bakersfield and/or Police Department is defending and indemnifying its police officers. This motion is GRANTED during the liability phase. If there is a punitive phase, the issue is RESERVED until the Court hears further argument on the topic.

6. To exclude any reference to Damacio Diaz and/or Patrick Mara and their alleged wrongful conduct. This motion is GRANTED.

7. To exclude any reference to allegedly wrongful acts by other law enforcement officers or agencies (i.e., Ferguson, Tamir, Rice, etc). This motion is GRANTED.

8. To exclude any reference that the City's policies, training, or discipline is, in any way, inadequate.

9. To exclude any reference to any prior or subsequent lawsuits or claims. This motion is GRANTED unless for purposes of impeachment. In that event, the Court SHALL be alerted before this evidence is used outside the presence of the jury.

10. To exclude any evidence or argument that the Defendants failed to investigate or have not yet completed their investigation of this matter. This motion is GRANTED.

11. To exclude expert opinions which exceed the scope of those disclosed during the course of discovery. This motion is GRANTED and counsel SHALL explicitly advise the experts of the Court's order and the specific parameters of their allowable testimony.

12. To exclude any evidence or argument that either the Department of Justice, the FBI, or any other agency is investigating this matter or its officers or that criminal charges have been or were considered. This motion is GRANTED.

13. To exclude non-party witnesses from the courtroom. This motion is GRANTED except that experts may be present. If they develop new opinions due to evidence heard at trial, they may not state them until the Court rules that they may.

14. To exclude any golden rule argument. This motion is GRANTED.

15. To exclude particular witnesses identified by Plaintiffs.

16. To exclude particular exhibits identified by Plaintiffs.

G. SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION

None.

H. RELIEF SOUGHT

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs seek all available categories of general and non-economic compensatory damages under federal and state law, including but not limited to physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, and humiliation, both past and future. Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages, attorney fees under 42 U.S.C § 1988 and California law, treble damages under the Ralph Act, and costs.

Defendants

Defendants seek dismissal of this case, costs, and attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C § 1988 and 42 U.S.C § 1927, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, Local Rules 292 and 293, and all other applicable statutes and rules.

I. ABANDONED ISSUES

Plaintiffs dismissed the following causes of action:

1. Their third cause of action for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process against all Defendants with prejudice;

2. Their fourth cause of action for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection) against Defendants Officer Nathan Poteete and Officer Ryan Clark with prejudice;

3. Their fifth cause of action for violation of the First Amendment (Retaliation) against Defendants Officer Ryan Clark and Officer Nathan Poteete with prejudice;

4. Their seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action for Municipal Liability with prejudice;

5. Their tenth cause of action for violation of the Ralph Act against Defendant Officer Ryan Clark and Nathan Poteete with prejudice; and

6. Their twelfth cause of action for Battery against Defendant Officer Ryan Clark and Nathan Poteete with prejudice;

J. WITNESSES

The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including rebuttal and impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT "MANIFEST INJUSTICE." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(10).

Plaintiffs' Witnesses

1. Timothy Grismore

2. Xavier Hines

3. Danni Melendez

4. Santos Luevano

5. Nathan Poteete

6. Ryan Clark

7. Frank McIntyre

8. Lorena Vasquez

9. Nestor Barajas

10. Daniel McAfee

11. Joseph Mullins

12. Brent Stratton

13. Krystal Albert

14. Monte Wilson

15. Patrick Jackson, Jr.

16. Tyler Harris

17. Linda Smith

18. Mattie Smith

19. Scott DeFoe (expert)

20. Custodian of Records for Kern County Sherriff's Office

21. Custodian of Records for City of Bakersfield

22. Lacey Hines

23. Lenda Hines

24. Erick Dominguez

25. Michael Gerrity

26. Lyle Martin

27. Gary Garruesco

28. Halsey Jackle, M.D.

29. Khoa Tu, M.D.

30. Nabil Yassa, M.D.

31. Lacreisa Conner

32. Jeriel Fite

Defendants' Witnesses

1. Timothy Grismore

2. Xavier Hines

3. Danni Melendez

4. Santos Luevano

5. Nathan Poteete

6. Ryan Clark

7. Frank McIntyre

8. Lorena Vasquez

9. Nestor Barajas

10. Daniel McAfee

11. Joseph Mullins

12. Brent Stratton

13. Maria Pineda

14. Monte Wilson

15. Patrick Jackson

16. Krystal Albert

17. Linda Smith

18. Mattie Smith

19. Custodian of Records for Kern County Sherriff's Office

20. Custodian of Records for California State Bakersfield

21. Custodian of Records for Kern Community College District (Bakersfield College)

22. Custodian of Records for County of Kern

22. Frederick Reyes

23. M. Gonzalez

24. Steve Holmes

25. Don Williams

26. Clarence Chapman (expert)

The court does not allow undisclosed witnesses to be called for any purpose, including impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:

a. The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the purpose of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at the pretrial conference, or

b. The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering party makes the showing required below.

Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial, the party shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of the unlisted witnesses so the court may consider whether the witnesses shall be permitted to testify at trial. The witnesses will not be permitted unless:

a. The witness could not reasonably be discovered prior to the discovery cutoff;

b. The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon the discovery;

c. If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and

d. If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness's testimony was provided to opposing parties.

K. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES

The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties expect to offer at trial. NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT "MANIFEST INJUSTICE." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(11).

1. For a party to use an undisclosed exhibit for any purpose, they must meet the following criteria:

2. Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits so that the court may consider their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received unless the proffering party demonstrates:

Plaintiffs' Exhibits

1. Photographs of Timothy Grismore

2. Photographs of Xavier Hines

3. Medical Records of Timothy Grismore from Kern Medical Center

4. 16 injury photographs of Timothy Grismore

5. BPD General Offense Hardcopy (police report)

6. BPD Use of Force Report

7. NAACP Video

8. Audio of Sergeant McAffee's Interview of Grismore

9. Kern County — Arietis Report regarding Xavier Hines

10. Kern County — Arietis Report regarding Timothy Grismore

11. BPD CAD Call Hardcopy

12. BPD Policy Manual, Policy 300

13. BPD Policy Manual, Policy 306

13. BPD Policy Manual, Policy 322

14. BPD Policy Manual, Policy 340

15. BPD Policy Manual, Policy 402

16. BPD Policy Manual, Policy 439

18. BPD Policy Manual, Policy 441

17. BPD Policy Manual, Policy 900

19. BPD Policy Manual Rules of Conduct

20. BPD Memorandum dated 7/23/14

21. BPD SEU Manual, revised 9/7/12

22. Bakersfield Police Department, Criminal Description Charge Search

23. PC 148, Resist, Obstruct, Delay of Peace Officer or EMT

24. California POST Basic Learning Domain #1: "Leadership, Professionalism and Ethics."

25. California POST Basic Learning Domain #2: "Criminal Justice System."

26. California POST Basic Learning Domain #3: "Policing in the Community."

27. California POST Basic Learning Domain #15: "Laws of Arrest."

28. California POST Basic Learning Domain #16: "Search and Seizure."

29. California POST Basic Learning Domain #18: "Investigative Report Writing."

30. California POST Basic Learning Domain #20: "Use of Force."

31. California POST Basic Learning Domain #21: "Patrol Techniques."

32. California POST Basic Learning Domain #23: "Crimes in Progress."

33. California POST Basic Learning Domain #33: "Arrest and Control."

34. California POST Basic Learning Domain #35: "Firearms/Chemical Agents."

35. BPD IA Division Year End Reports

36. Excerpts of Personnel Records for Officer Danni Melendez

37. Excerpts of Personnel Records for Officer Santos Luevano

38. Excerpts of Personnel Records for Officer Nathan Poteete

39. Excerpts of Personnel Records for Officer Ryan Clark

40. Excerpts of Personnel Records for Officer Daniel McAffee

41. Excerpts of Personnel Records for Officer Frank McIntyre

42. Excerpts of Personnel Records for Officer Lorena Vazquez

43. Excerpts of Personnel Records for Officer Nestor Barajas

44. Blue Team Reports for Officer Danni Melendez

45. Blue Team Reports for Officer Santos Luevano

46. GO# 2016-264930 General Offense Hardcopy

47. GO# 2015-57211 General Offense Hardcopy

48. GO# 2016-37613 General Offense Hardcopy

49. Journal (produced at Plaintiffs' deposition)

50. November 9, 2017 Letter to Attorney General Xavier Becerra

51. ACLU Report: Patterns & Practices of Police Excessive Force in Kern County

Defendants' Exhibits

1. Audio Interview of Timothy Grismore

2. Kern County Superior Court records for Xavier Hines

3. Kern Community College District (Bakersfield College) Records for Xavier Hines

4. Kern Community College District (Bakersfield College) Records for (Timothy Grismore)

5. Cal State Bakersfield Records for Xavier Hines

6. Cal State Bakersfield Records for Timothy Grismore

7. Select records from Kern Medical Center

8. Video of News Report re: lawsuit

9. NAACP Video re: incident

10. Video of Timothy Grismore and Xavier Hines from City Council meeting.

11. Various criminal documents pertaining to Patrick Jackson

12. Kern County-Arietis pertaining to Timothy Grismore

13. Kern County-Arietis pertaining to Xavier Hines

14. Video deposition of Timothy Grismore

15. Video deposition of Xavier Hines

On or before December 14, 2018 counsel SHALL meet and confer to discuss any disputes related to the above listed exhibits and to pre-mark and examining each other's exhibits. Any exhibits not previously disclosed in discovery SHALL be provided via e-mail or overnight delivery so that it is received by December 12, 2018.

1. At the exhibit conference, counsel will determine whether there are objections to the admission of each of the exhibits and will prepare separate indexes; one listing joint exhibits, one listing Plaintiff's exhibits and one listing Defendant's exhibits. In advance of the conference, counsel must have a complete set of their proposed exhibits in order to be able to fully discuss whether evidentiary objections exist. Thus, any exhibit not previously provided in discovery SHALL be provided at least five court days in advance of the exhibit conference.

2. At the conference, counsel shall identify any duplicate exhibits, i.e., any document which both sides desire to introduce into evidence. These exhibits SHALL be marked as a joint exhibit and numbered as directed above. Joint exhibits SHALL be admitted into without further foundation.

All Joint exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers preceded by the designation "JT" (e.g. JT/1, JT/2, etc.). Plaintiff's exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 1 by the designation PX (e.g. PX1, PX2, etc.). Defendant's exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 501 preceded by the designation DX (e.g. DX501, DX502, etc.). The parties SHALL number each page of any exhibit exceeding one page in length (e.g. PX1-1, PX1-2, PX1-3, etc.).

If originals of exhibits are unavailable, the parties may substitute legible copies. If any document is offered that is not fully legible, the Court may exclude it from evidence.

Each joint exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the exhibits. The index shall consist of a column for the exhibit number, one for a description of the exhibit and one column entitled "Admitted in Evidence" (as shown in the example below).

3. As to any exhibit which is not a joint exhibit but to which there is no objection to its introduction, the exhibit will likewise be appropriately marked, i.e., as PX1, or as DX501 and will be indexed as such on the index of the offering party. Such exhibits will be admitted upon introduction and motion of the party, without further foundation.

4. Each exhibit binder shall contain an index which is placed in the binder before the exhibits. Each index shall consist of the exhibit number, the description of the exhibit and the three columns as shown in the example below.

5. On the index, as to exhibits to which the only objection is a lack of foundation, counsel will place a mark under the column heading entitled "Admissible but for Foundation."

6. On the index, as to exhibits to which there are objections to admissibility that are not based solely on a lack of foundation, counsel will place a mark under the column heading entitled "Other Objections."

After the exhibit conference, Plaintiff and counsel for the defendants SHALL develop four complete, legible sets of exhibits. The parties SHALL deliver three sets of their exhibit binders to the Courtroom Clerk and provide one set to their opponent, no later than 4:00 p.m., on January 11, 2019 Counsel SHALL determine which of them will also provide three sets of the joint exhibits to the Courtroom Clerk.

7. The Parties SHALL number each page of any exhibit exceeding one page in length.

L. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

The following is a list of discovery documents — portions of depositions, answers to interrogatories, and responses to requests for admissions — that the parties expect to offer at trial. NO DISCOVERY DOCUMENT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT "MANIFEST INJUSTICE." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(12).

Plaintiff's Documents

1. City of Bakersfield's Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission, Set One

2. City of Bakersfield's Responses to Plaintiffs' Special Interrogatories, Set One

3. City of Bakersfield's Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set Two

Defendants' Documents

1. Plaintiff Timothy Grismore's responses to Interrogatories from City of Bakersfield

2. Plaintiff Timothy Grismore's responses to Interrogatories from Danni Melendez

3. Plaintiff Timothy Grismore's responses to Interrogatories from Santos Luevano

4. Plaintiff Timothy Grismore's responses to Interrogatories from Ryan Clark

5. Plaintiff Timothy Grismore's responses to Interrogatories from Nathan Poteete

6. Plaintiff Timothy Grismore's responses to Interrogatories, Set Two from Lorena Vasquez

7. Plaintiff Timothy Grismore's responses to Request for Admission, Set One.

8. Plaintiff Xavier Hines' responses to Interrogatories from City of Bakersfield

9. Plaintiff Xavier Hines' responses to Interrogatories from Danni Melendez

10. Plaintiff Xavier Hines' responses to Interrogatories from Santos Luevano

11. Plaintiff Xavier Hines' responses to Interrogatories from Ryan Clark

12. Plaintiff Xavier Hines' responses to Interrogatories from Nathan Poteete

M. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

No further discovery is sought by either party.

N. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Any party may file motions in limine. The purpose of a motion in limine is to establish in advance of the trial that certain evidence should not be offered at trial. "Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent authority to manage the course of trials." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984); Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). The Court will grant a motion in limine, and thereby bar use of the evidence in question, only if the moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Id.

In advance of filing any motion in limine, counsel SHALL meet and confer to determine whether they can resolve any disputes and avoid filing motions in limine. Along with their motions in limine, the parties SHALL file a certification demonstrating counsel have in good faith met and conferred and attempted to resolve the dispute. Failure to provide the certification may result in the Court refusing to entertain the motion.

Any motions in limine must be filed with the Court by December 17, 2018. The motion must clearly identify the nature of the evidence that the moving party seeks to prohibit the other side from offering at trial. Any opposition to the motion must be served on the other party, and filed with the Court by December 28, 2018. The Court sets a hearing on the motions in limine on January 7, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. Counsel may appear via teleconference by dialing (888) 557-8511 and entering Access Code 1652736, provided the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Deputy Clerk receives a written notice of the intent to appear telephonically no later than five court days before the noticed hearing date.

The parties are reminded they may still object to the introduction of evidence during trial.

O. STIPULATIONS

None.

P. AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS

The parties agree to the dismissal of the "Doe Defendants" from the Plaintiffs' Complaint. (Doc. 63 at 29) Accordingly, all claims against "Doe Defendants" are DISMISSED.

Q. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

Informal settlement discussions occurred, but the parties were not able to resolve the matter. A settlement conference with the Court was vacated when the parties determined a conference would not be beneficial. (See Doc. 62 at 2)

R. AGREED STATEMENT

None.

S. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES

The parties agree that punitive damages should be determined in a separate phase of the case. The Court will bifurcate the amount of punitive damages to a second phase of trial. However, liability for punitive damages will be determined in the first phase.

T. APPOINTMENT OF IMPARTIAL EXPERTS

None requested.

U. ATTORNEYS' FEES

The parties will seek an award of attorneys' fees as appropriate as a post-trial motion.

V. TRIAL DATE/ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL

Jury trial is set for January 14, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston at the United States Courthouse, 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. Trial is expected to last 5-7 days.

W. TRIAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSIONS

1. Trial Briefs

The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file trial briefs. If any party wishes to file a trial brief, they must do so in accordance with Local Rule 285 and be filed on or before January 4, 2019.

2. Jury Voir Dire

The parties are required to file their proposed voir dire questions, in accordance with Local Rule 162.1, on or before January 4, 2019.

3. Jury Instructions & Verdict Form

The parties shall serve, via e-mail or fax, their proposed jury instructions in accordance with Local Rule 163 and their proposed verdict form on one another no later than December 12, 2018 The parties shall conduct a conference to address their proposed jury instructions and verdict form no later than December 14, 2018. At the conference, the parties SHALL attempt to reach agreement on jury instructions and verdict form for use at trial. The parties shall file all agreed-upon jury instructions and verdict form no later than January 4, 2019, and identify such as the agreed-upon jury instructions and verdict forms. At the same time, the parties SHALL lodge via e-mail a copy of the joint jury instructions and joint verdict form (in Word format) to JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov.

If and only if, the parties after genuine, reasonable and good faith effort cannot agree upon certain specific jury instructions and verdict form, the parties shall file their respective proposed (disputed) jury instructions and proposed (disputed) verdict form no later than January 4, 2019, and identify such as the disputed jury instructions and verdict forms. At the same time, the parties SHALL lodge via e-mail, a copy of his/their own (disputed) jury instructions and proposed (disputed) verdict form (in Word format) to JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov.

In selecting proposed instructions, the parties shall use Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions or California's CACI instructions to the extent possible. All jury instructions and verdict forms shall indicate the party submitting the instruction or verdict form (i.e., joint, plaintiff's, defendant's, etc.), the number of the proposed instruction in sequence, a brief title for the instruction describing the subject matter, the complete text of the instruction, and the legal authority supporting the instruction. Each instruction SHALL be numbered.

X. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER

Any party may, within 10 days after the date of service of this order, file and serve written objections to any of the provisions set forth in this order. Such objections shall clearly specify the requested modifications, corrections, additions or deletions.

Y. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

None.

Z. COMPLIANCE

Strict compliance with this order and its requirements is mandatory. All parties and their counsel are subject to sanctions, including dismissal or entry of default, for failure to fully comply with this order and its requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.