Ousdale v. Target Corporation, 2:17-cv-02749-APG-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190913a47
Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2019
Summary: Order Rejecting Proposed Pretrial Orders [ECF Nos. 80, 81] ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . The parties have submitted individual proposed pretrial orders. ECF Nos. 80, 81. Those proposals violate the applicable Local Rules in a variety of ways. For instance, the parties have not conferred on a final, joint proposed order. Neither of the parties objected to the other's proposed exhibits, which means they apparently stipulate to the admission of all exhibits (although such a stipulation
Summary: Order Rejecting Proposed Pretrial Orders [ECF Nos. 80, 81] ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . The parties have submitted individual proposed pretrial orders. ECF Nos. 80, 81. Those proposals violate the applicable Local Rules in a variety of ways. For instance, the parties have not conferred on a final, joint proposed order. Neither of the parties objected to the other's proposed exhibits, which means they apparently stipulate to the admission of all exhibits (although such a stipulation i..
More
Order Rejecting Proposed Pretrial Orders
[ECF Nos. 80, 81]
ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.
The parties have submitted individual proposed pretrial orders. ECF Nos. 80, 81. Those proposals violate the applicable Local Rules in a variety of ways. For instance, the parties have not conferred on a final, joint proposed order. Neither of the parties objected to the other's proposed exhibits, which means they apparently stipulate to the admission of all exhibits (although such a stipulation is missing). And both sides attempted to reserve the right to use any documents produced by the other party during discovery. That is not permitted, as Local Rule 16-3(b)(8) requires parties to list all of their trial exhibits, rather than reserving some unfounded right to later identify exhibits.
The parties' individual proposed pretrial orders (ECF Nos. 80, 81) are rejected. The parties are to personally confer as required in Local Rule 16-3, and submit a Joint Pretrial Order that complies with Local Rule 16-4 by October 4, 2019.
Source: Leagle
