ORDER REJECTING PARTIES' PROPOSED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.

The parties' proposed Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 116) does not comply with Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4. For example, in their joint exhibit list, the parties list deposition transcripts of people who are also listed as witnesses who will testify at trial. ECF No. 116. It is unclear why the depositions of testifying witnesses will be needed as exhibits. Moreover, the parties do not designate the portions of those transcripts they intend to use at trial, as required by Local Rule 163(b)(10). Further, both parties list what appears to be every document identified in discovery. The parties apparently have not bothered to think about the documents they actually intend to use at trial.

The proposed order also does not include the language for the court's action, as required by Local Rule 16-4.

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 the trial preparation and presentation, and to foster settlement. The parties cannot simply wait to make trial decisions until the eve of trial. If they do, they cannot fully participate in settlement discussions. It is apparent from the proposed Joint Pretrial Order that the parties either ignored Local Rule 16-3, or did not properly conduct the required conference in the spirit of the rule. If the parties are unwilling to properly prepare for a settlement conference and trial, they should strongly consider settling this dispute on their own, without wasting their and the court's resources.

IT IS ORDERED that the parties' Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 116) 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.