ORDER REJECTING THE PARTIES' JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

(ECF No. 61)

ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.

The parties' proposed Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 61) does not comply with Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4. For example, in the plaintiff's list of proposed exhibits, she identifies six overbroad categories of exhibits (e.g., "Plaintiff's medical records," "GEICO policies and procedures"). Local Rule 16-3(b)(8) states that the list of exhibits "must describe the exhibits sufficiently for ready identification" so the other parties can state their objections to those proposed exhibits. In addition, both parties improperly "reserve the right to object to the admissibility of evidence proffered by the other party based upon the Federal Rules of Evidence." ECF No. 61 at 10. Parties must state their objections in the proposed order; they cannot reserve their right to do so later. LR 16-3(b)(8)(B).

Similarly, the parties improperly fail to designate the specific portions of the depositions they intend to offer, as required by Local Rule 16-3(b)(10).

GEICO's witness list improperly includes various "PMK" or "30(b)(6) representative" witnesses, including from its own company. GEICO should know by now the names of its witnesses, especially its own employees.

The requirements set forth in Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4 are designed to streamline the 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. The proposed Joint Pretrial Order does not comply with the requirements or the spirit of Local Rule 16-3. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties' Joint Pretrial Order (ECF No. 61) 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.