ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff is an inmate proceeding pro se with this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 12, 2014, the parties were ordered to file pretrial statements in accordance with Local Rule 281. (ECF No. 250.) On September 2, 2014, plaintiff filed his pretrial statement. (ECF No. 254.) Before the court is defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's pretrial statement for failure to comply with the June 12, 2014 order and local rules. (ECF No. 258.)

Having reviewed plaintiff's pretrial statement, the court concludes that it represents a good-faith effort to comply with Local Rule 281, and largely does so. Due to an apparent misunderstanding in talks with defendants' counsel, however, plaintiff fails to indicate in his pretrial statement what exhibits he intends to introduce at trial (L.R. 281(b)(11)); whether he requests a court-appointed expert (L.R. 281(b)(19)); and whether he intends to claim any privilege against disclosure (L.R. 281(c)). Defendants reasonably assert that they need this information before preparing their own pretrial statement.

The court declines to strike plaintiff's pretrial statement and require him to submit a new, amended statement, as this would be unduly burdensome. Rather, the court will direct plaintiff to file a Supplemental Pretrial Statement addressing the issues set forth above. The court will consider this Supplemental Pretrial Statement along with the original pretrial statement. Defendants' pretrial statement will be due thereafter.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants' motion to strike (ECF No. 258) is granted in part as follows:

(a) Within thirty days of this order, plaintiff is directed to file a Supplemental Pretrial Statement that addresses the requirements of Local Rule 281, subsections (b)(11), (b)(19), and (c).

(b) Defendants' pretrial statement will be due fourteen days after plaintiff files his Supplemental Pretrial Statement.