Rodriguez v. Your First Choice, LLC., 2:16-cv-02447-APG-CWH. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20171206892
Visitors: 1
Filed: Nov. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 17, 2017
Summary: ORDER REJECTING JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER (ECF No. 33) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . The parties' proposed Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 33) does not comply with Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4. For example, Local Rule 16-3(b)(8)(B) requires the parties to list the exhibits to which objection is made and state the grounds for the objection. The Joint Pretrial Order suggests that the parties object to all of the exhibits (ECF No. 33 at 10, X), yet there is no ground for any objection listed. M
Summary: ORDER REJECTING JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER (ECF No. 33) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . The parties' proposed Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 33) does not comply with Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4. For example, Local Rule 16-3(b)(8)(B) requires the parties to list the exhibits to which objection is made and state the grounds for the objection. The Joint Pretrial Order suggests that the parties object to all of the exhibits (ECF No. 33 at 10, X), yet there is no ground for any objection listed. Mo..
More
ORDER REJECTING JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER
(ECF No. 33)
ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.
The parties' proposed Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 33) does not comply with Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4. For example, Local Rule 16-3(b)(8)(B) requires the parties to list the exhibits to which objection is made and state the grounds for the objection. The Joint Pretrial Order suggests that the parties object to all of the exhibits (ECF No. 33 at 10, § X), yet there is no ground for any objection listed. Moreover, each party lists as an exhibit the other side's "Responses to . . . Discovery Demands." Id. at 11, 12. This violates Local Rule 16-3(b)(8), which requires the parties to "describe the exhibits sufficiently for ready identification."
The requirements in Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4 are designed to streamline the trial preparation and presentation, and to foster settlement. By not properly identifying all exhibits and specifying the grounds for each objection, the proposed Joint Pretrial Order does not help streamline the trial. It is therefore rejected.
IT IS ORDERED that the parties' Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 33) is REJECTED. The parties shall personally confer as required in Local Rule 16-3, and submit a Joint Pretrial Order that complies with Local Rule 16-4 within 21 days of entry of this Order.
Source: Leagle
