ORDER REJECTING PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER

(ECF No. 29)

ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.

Plaintiffs' Proposed Pretrial Order (ECF No. 29) does not comply with Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4. Those Local Rules require the parties to file a Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. Plaintiffs' proposal states "Plaintiffs' counsel attempted to obtain approval from opposing counsel to file this as a Joint Pre-Trial Order but were unable to do so by the deadline, and thus has to file it individually." ECF No. 29 at 1 n. 1. This bare assertion is insufficient to justify filing an individual proposed order. Plaintiffs have not explained when their counsel contacted opposing counsel and whether that contact was timely to allow opposing counsel to confer and respond. It also appears that Plaintiffs' counsel did not initiate a personal discussion regarding settlement and the proposed order as required by Local Rule 16-3(b). Counsel simply "attempted to obtain approval from opposing counsel to file" the order. Id.

The proposed order also fails to include specific objections to the exhibits, lists of depositions to be used (if any) and objections, a statement whether electronic evidence will be used, and many other items required by Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4. The proposed Order is replete with additional inadequacies; I will not waste my time cataloguing those for the parties.

Local Rule 16-3 requires the parties to personally discuss these and other issues. The requirements set forth in Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4 are designed to streamline trial preparation and presentation, and to foster settlement. It is apparent from the proposed Pretrial Order that the parties either ignored those Local Rules or did not properly conduct the required conference. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Proposed Pretrial Order (Dkt. #29) is REJECTED. The parties shall personally confer as required in Local Rule 16-3, and submit a Joint Pretrial Order that complies with Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4 within 21 days of entry of this Order.