Opinion
2:06-cv-2657-GEB-KJM.
August 28, 2007
ORDER
On August 24, 2007, Plaintiff filed a "Declaration of Zunilda Ramos Re: Leave to File Separate Jury Instructions, Voir Dire, and Verdict Forms" requesting "that the court permit the filing of separate proposed jury instructions, voir dire, and verdict forms." (Ramos Decl. ¶ 2.) The final pretrial order issued in this action on August 14, 2007 provides, in relevant part:
Jury instructions, proposed voir dire, and verdict forms shall be filed no later than fifteen (15) court days before trial. The parties shall prepare the instructions and verdict forms in accordance with Local Rule 51-163, and shall tailor all general instructions to the facts and issues in suit. The parties are directed to confer and to attempt to agree upon a joint set of jury instructions and verdict forms. As to instructions on which there is dispute, the parties shall adhere to the following procedure: 1) the party offering the disputed instruction(s) shall submit the instruction(s) as its proposed jury instructions, shall submit authority in support of the proposed instruction(s) and shall number the disputed instruction(s) in a manner that shows where each disputed instruction should be placed in the tendered agreed upon instructions. The contested instruction(s) and supporting authority shall be filed with the joint set of instructions fifteen (15) court days prior to the trial commencement date; 2) the party opposed to the contested instruction(s) shall file opposing authority ten (10) court days prior to the trial commencement date.
(Aug. 14, 2007 Order at 15-16 (emphasis added).) Therefore, the final pretrial order contemplates that if the parties are unable to agree on any joint jury instructions and/or verdict forms, they shall file separate proposed jury instructions and verdict forms. Accordingly, the leave Plaintiff seeks is unnecessary.
The final pretrial order does not require the parties to confer and attempt to agree upon proposed voir dire.
IT IS SO ORDERED.