Greentree Financial Group, Inc. v. Pacific Stock Transfer Company, 2:16-cv-01988-APG-GWF. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180427964
Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER REJECTING DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED PRE-TRIAL ORDER (ECF No. 19) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . Defendant Pacific Stock Transfer Company (PST) filed an individual proposed pre-trial order. ECF No. 19. PST asserts that plaintiff Greentree Financial Group failed to timely cooperate in the preparation of a joint pre-trial order, forcing PST to file its own. I applaud PST for being conscientious of the filing deadline and complying with it. But having individual proposed orders makes it
Summary: ORDER REJECTING DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED PRE-TRIAL ORDER (ECF No. 19) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . Defendant Pacific Stock Transfer Company (PST) filed an individual proposed pre-trial order. ECF No. 19. PST asserts that plaintiff Greentree Financial Group failed to timely cooperate in the preparation of a joint pre-trial order, forcing PST to file its own. I applaud PST for being conscientious of the filing deadline and complying with it. But having individual proposed orders makes it m..
More
ORDER REJECTING DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED PRE-TRIAL ORDER
(ECF No. 19)
ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.
Defendant Pacific Stock Transfer Company (PST) filed an individual proposed pre-trial order. ECF No. 19. PST asserts that plaintiff Greentree Financial Group failed to timely cooperate in the preparation of a joint pre-trial order, forcing PST to file its own. I applaud PST for being conscientious of the filing deadline and complying with it. But having individual proposed orders makes it more difficult for me to prepare and schedule the case for trial. I will give the parties additional time to submit a joint pre-trial order. If Greentree again fails to timely participate in preparation of the order, I will consider sanctions against it, including dismissal of its claims.
To aid the parties, I note that PST's proposed order does not comply with Local Rules 16-3 in one way. PST identifies two deposition transcripts, but does not designate the portions of those transcripts it will use, as required by Local Rule 16-3(b)(10). This makes it impossible for Greentree to properly object as required by Local Rule 16-3(b)(11). If an entire deposition transcript is to be used, that should be stated. This error should be fixed when the joint pre-trial order is submitted.
Local Rule 16-3 requires the parties to personally discuss the issues set forth in that rule. The requirements in Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4 are designed to streamline the trial preparation and presentation, and to foster settlement. Delaying the preparation of the order makes it harder for parties to fully participate in settlement discussions.
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's proposed pretrial order (ECF No. 19) 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 14 days of entry of this Order. If either party fails to participate as required under the Local Rules, the other party should file an individual proposed pre-trial order and explain why it is not a joint proposal.
Source: Leagle
