ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATES

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

On February 12, 2019, District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill conducted a pretrial conference in this matter. During the conference, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. (ECF No. 63.) On February 14, 2019, the matter was reassigned to the undersigned. (ECF no. 64.) On February 22, 2019, a telephonic conference was held to discuss setting the trial dates. Counsel Jesse Banuelos and Brian Leighton appeared for Plaintiff and counsel Diana Esquivel appeared for Defendant.

As discussed at the February 22, 2019, the Court issues the following order.

I. Pre-Trial Conference Date

The Pre-Trial conference is set for October 18, 2019, at 1:00 pm. in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.

The parties shall file an Amended Joint Pretrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2) or a supplement to the February 5, 2019 Joint Pretrial Statement clearing set forth any changes two (2) weeks prior to the pretrial conference. The parties are further directed to submit a digital copy of their Pretrial Statement or supplement in Word format, directly to Magistrate Judge Boone's chambers by email at saborders@caed.uscourts.gov.

Counsels' attention is directed to Rules 281 and 282 of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict compliance with those rules. In addition to the matters set forth in the Local Rules, the Joint Pretrial Statement shall include a Joint Statement of the Case to be used by the Court to explain the nature of the case to the jury during voir dire.

II. Motions In Limine and Hearing

Any party may file a motion in limine, which is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence in a particular area. United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). The Court orders the parties to meet and confer to attempt to come to an agreement on any issue before it is presented to the Court in a motion in limine. If this Court surmises that the parties have filed motions in limine without meaningful, genuine attempts to meet and confer, this Court will strike the motions in limine and remove them from calendar.

This Court further orders the parties to file motions in limine only with respect to important, critical matters. Most evidentiary issues can be resolved easily with a conference between counsel or with the Court. Motions in limine on abstract evidentiary issues or issues more appropriately addressed by the Court on a case-by-case basis (such as a motion in limine to exclude all irrelevant evidence) will be looked upon with disfavor.

The parties shall not file separate motions in limine for every issue presented to the Court. Rather, each party may file one consolidated motion in limine which is subdivided into separate sections for each issue setting forth the legal authority and analysis. The responding party shall file one opposition in response addressing each motion in limine issue in a separate section. Counsel are advised that moving and opposition papers must be brief, succinct and well-organized.

The parties, after meeting and conferring, shall file and serve their truly disputed motions in limine no later than November 1, 2019. Oppositions in response to such motions in limine shall be filed and served no later than November 15, 2019. This Court will neither accept nor consider reply papers. This Court will conduct a hearing on the motions in limine on November 20, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 (SAB) of this Court, unless this Court determines that a hearing is not necessary.

III. Trial Date

Trial is set for December 3, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.

A. Currently this matter is set for a jury trial. Should the parties agree to a bench trial, they shall notify the Court as soon as practicable.

B. Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time: 2 to 3 weeks.

C. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rule 285 for the Eastern District of California.

IV. Compliance with Federal Procedure

All counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, and to keep abreast of any amendments thereto. The Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to efficiently handle its increasing case load and sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow the Rules as provided in both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Eastern District of California.

Additional requirements and more detailed procedures for courtroom practice before United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone can be found at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California's website (http://www.caed.uscourts.gov) under Judges; United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone (SAB). In the area entitled "Case Management Procedures," there is a link to "Standard Information." All parties and counsel shall comply with the guidelines set forth therein.

V. Effect of this Order

The foregoing order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to dispose of this case. The trial date reserved is specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met, counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference.

Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested. The parties are advised that due to the impacted nature of civil cases on the district judges in the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, that stipulations to continue set dates are disfavored and will not be granted absent good cause.

Lastly, should counsel or a party appearing pro se fail to comply with the directions as set forth above, an ex parte hearing may be held and contempt sanctions, including monetary sanctions, dismissal, default, or other appropriate judgment, may be imposed and/or ordered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.