ORDER REJECTING PROPOSED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

(ECF No. 125)

ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.

The parties' proposed Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 125) does not comply with Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4. For example, in their exhibit list, the plaintiffs list virtually every document produced by the party using Bates-stamp designations beginning with the prefix "S," totaling over 2100 pages. The defendants thus cannot properly object as required by Local Rule 16-3(b)(8)(B). The defendants list 90 proposed exhibits, but at least they seem to have reviewed and selected specific exhibits. The plaintiffs attempt to reserve their objections to these exhibits, in violation of Local Rule 16-3(b)(8)(B).

The plaintiffs list nine depositions they may offer at trial, but fail to designate page and line numbers of specific testimony as required by Local Rule 16-3(b)(10). Thus, the defendants cannot list their objections as required under Local Rule 16-3(b)(11). The proposed Order has additional inadequacies; I will not catalogue those for the parties.

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 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 ORDERED that the parties' Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 125) 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.