Opinion
1:21-cv-01193-ADA-HBK (PC)
10-24-2022
THOMAS K. MILLS, Plaintiff, v. Z. JONES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENTER PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS AND SPECIAL VERDICT FORM AS PREMATURE
(DOC. NO. 126)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to enter a proposed voir dire questions and a special verdict form filed on August 1, 2022. (Doc. No. 126). Plaintiff submits fifty-one (51) voir dire questions and a proposed special verdict form for the Court's consideration. (Id.). Defendants filed an opposition on September 14, 2022 in their omnibus response objecting to the proposed voir dire questions and special verdict form, but alternatively, requesting the Court to deny the motion without prejudice as premature. (Doc. No. 137 at 14).
Notably, no trial date has been set for this action. And while a discovery and scheduling order has been issued, this case remains in the early procedural discovery stages. (See Doc. No. 120). Should this action proceed to trial, the Court will issue a pretrial order which will establish deadlines for when the parties may submit proposed voir dire questions and a special verdict form. Thus, Plaintiff's motion is premature. Further, the Court has repeatedly warned Plaintiff that it does not act as a repository for Plaintiff's documents that he seeks to file preemptively. (See Doc. Nos. 45, 78, 79, 80, 87). Plaintiff may resubmit his proposed voir dire questions and special verdict form at a future date as appropriate.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff's motion to enter proposed voir dire questions and special verdict form (Doc. No. 126) is DENIED without prejudice as premature.