Filed: Jul. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 07, 2015
Summary: ORDER VACATING FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER AND AMENDING STATUS ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . On June 30, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 1, in which they request the Court "permit[] supplemental briefing on the Parties' cross motions for summary judgment[,]" and "reconsider its order on the Parties' cross motions for summary judgment with the benefit of the Parties' supplemental briefing and in light of the fact that the tri
Summary: ORDER VACATING FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER AND AMENDING STATUS ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . On June 30, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 1, in which they request the Court "permit[] supplemental briefing on the Parties' cross motions for summary judgment[,]" and "reconsider its order on the Parties' cross motions for summary judgment with the benefit of the Parties' supplemental briefing and in light of the fact that the tria..
More
ORDER VACATING FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER AND AMENDING STATUS ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.
On June 30, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 1, in which they request the Court "permit[] supplemental briefing on the Parties' cross motions for summary judgment[,]" and "reconsider its order on the Parties' cross motions for summary judgment with the benefit of the Parties' supplemental briefing and in light of the fact that the trial of this matter will be a nonjury trial.1" (Joint Mot. 2:4-8, ECF No. 94 (citations omitted).) "Specifically, the Parties propose to submit supplemental briefs of seven pages or fewer (plus any supplemental exhibits) on or by July 24, 2015, and four page reply briefs on or by July 31, 2015." (Id. at 4:4-6.) The parties further request "that the Court continue the August 11 trial date for 60 days to allow the Court to hear and rule on summary judgment." (Id. at 4:8-9.) The parties argue in support of their motion as follows:
Because the parties have waived a jury trial by stipulation, this case is now set to be tried to the Court. In the interest of a "just, speedy, and inexpensive" resolution of this Action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the Parties respectfully request that the court reconsider the Parties' motions for summary judgment with the benefit of additional briefing. The . . . Parties agree that there are significant material facts over which there are no disputes; the Court's order denying the Parties' cross motions for summary judgment identifies a host of undisputed material facts. The Parties respectfully submit that there are one or more legal issues which can and should be resolved based on the undisputed material facts in the record, and that a ruling on these issues prior to trial will significantly limit scope of witness testimony and documentary evidence needed for the trial of this action, if not eliminate the need for a trial altogether.
For example, the Court's analysis of the second prong of the administrative exemption (work directly related to Provident's management or general business operations) does not identify any disputed material facts. And yet the Court made no ruling as to whether the undisputed facts were sufficient for Provident to carry its burden on this prong of the exemption. Without additional guidance from the Court, the Parties will inevitably present these and similar undisputed facts to the Court, in a bench trial, through a series of witnesses and documents, and then ask the Court to reach a legal conclusion the parties believe can and should be made now.
The Court also denied Provident's motion on the third prong of the exemption (exercise of discretion and independent judgment). As with the second prong, a clear ruling as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the undisputed material facts, and a demarcation of the disputed facts left for trial, could significantly narrow the factual issues to be presented regarding the third prong, if not eliminate the need for a trial altogether. The Parties respectfully submit that resolving these issues on summary judgment, rather than through live witnesses in a bench trial, will promote judicial economy.
(Id. at 3:4-28 (citations omitted).)
In light of the parties' Joint Motion and Joint Stipulation for Non-Jury Trial, the Final Pretrial Order filed on May 15, 2015, is vacated, and the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order filed on November 19, 2013, is amended as follows:
The parties' supplemental briefing schedule on the referenced cross motions for summary judgment is adopted as follows: supplemental briefs of seven pages or fewer (plus any supplemental exhibits) shall be filed no later than July 24, 2015, and any reply briefs of four pages or fewer shall be filed no later than July 31, 20152; the hearing on the motions is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on August 11, 2015; a final pretrial conference is scheduled in courtroom 10 at 11:00 a.m. on October 19, 2015; the parties shall file a further JOINT pretrial statement no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the final pretrial conference; and trial commences at 9:00 a.m. on December 1, 2015, in courtroom 10.
