From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Braun v. O'Brien

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 2, 2006
Case No. CV-F-04-5474 LJO, Doc. 66 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. CV-F-04-5474 LJO, Doc. 66.

February 2, 2006


ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED ADDITIONAL DISPUTED FACTS AND POINTS OF LAW


On January 24, 2006, plaintiff Greg Braun ("plaintiff"), plan agent for Coast Grain Company, and defendants Thomas O'Brien and Dairy Feed Group (collectively "defendants") filed their joint pretrial statement for the January 31, 2006 pretrial conference at which defense counsel requested to add disputed facts and points of law to include in the pretrial order. Defense counsel gave this Court and plaintiff's counsel the impression that defense counsel would seek to add, at most and if any, a few overlooked, minor disputed facts and points of law.

During the afternoon of January 31, 2006, defendants submitted 26 proposed additional disputed facts and seven points of law. On February 1, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the proposed additional disputed facts and points of law to contend, among other things, that the proposed additional disputed facts and points of law were untimely and would greatly expand the scope of trial to render the January 31, 2006 pretrial conference meaningless. Plaintiff also raised substantive objections to the merits of the proposed additional disputed facts and points of law. Defense counsel responded with his declaration to claim that the parties waived objections to "facts not listed as disputed" in that the joint pretrial conference statement noted that all facts other than undisputed facts are disputed.

F.R.Civ.P. 16(d) mandates that his Court conduct a final pretrial conference during which the participants "shall formulate a plan for trial." This Court's Local Rule 16-281(b) requires parties to file a pretrial statement to include, among other things, disputed factual issues and points of law. As to disputed factual issues, Local Rule 16-281(b)(3) requires a "plain, concise statement of each fact (and any related essential facts) that the party claims or concedes to be in dispute." (Bold added.) As to points of law, Local Rule 281(b)(8) requires a "statement of the legal theory or theories of recovery or of defense and of any points of law (substantive or procedural) that are or may reasonably be expected to be in controversy, citing the pertinent statutes, ordinances, regulations, cases and other authorities relied upon." (Bold added.)

To put it mildly, defendants' proposed additional 26 disputed facts and seven points of law mock the pretrial statement requirements, pretrial conference and, in particular, the seriousness of the matters to be addressed at the pretrial conference. This Court would need to conduct another pretrial conference if it were to allow such mockery, that is, addition of defendant's proposed disputed facts and points of law, in that neither this Court, plaintiffs nor apparently defense counsel were prepared or able to address such matters at the pretrial conference. This Court and its rules impose on defendants and their counsel the obligation to prepare a pretrial statement timely, adequately and completely to ensure a meaningful pretrial conference and pretrial order and to promote the efficient and effective use of the parties and this Court's time and resources at trial and in preparation of it. An overbroad claim that all facts are disputed excepted listed undisputed facts does not relieve the parties of their obligation to comply with pretrial statement requirements. Moreover, plaintiffs assert well founded specific objections to defendant's proposed additional disputed facts and points of law.

This Court DENIES defendants' request to add 26 proposed disputed facts and seven points of law to the pretrial order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Braun v. O'Brien

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 2, 2006
Case No. CV-F-04-5474 LJO, Doc. 66 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)
Case details for

Braun v. O'Brien

Case Details

Full title:GREG BRAUN, Plan Agent for Coast Grain Company, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 2, 2006

Citations

Case No. CV-F-04-5474 LJO, Doc. 66 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)