Opinion
02 Civ. 8613 (LAK)
January 6, 2004
ORDER
The parties have submitted a 340-page jointpretrial order that does not comply with the Court's requirements. They have submitted separate versions of Section I, the nature of the case. Section III, which is to contain stipulated facts, contains no stipulated facts — rather, it contains separate proposals by each side for stipulations. Section V, which is supposed to be a joint statement of the issues to be tried, contains a separate version for each side and no agreement on anything. The defendant, moreover, lists 229 issues that it contends must be tried.
Among the purposes of a joint pretrial order is a narrowing of the issues for trial, the reaching of agreements on all matters that reasonably can be agreed upon, and simplification. This case is a dispute relating to a business transaction. Based on its prior experience with the case, the Court knows that there is no genuine dispute as to a broad range of the pertinent facts and that the issues for trial, if indeed any survive the pending summary judgment motions, are fairly narrow. Accordingly, the parties must make a serious effort to prepare a proper joint pretrial order.
The parties are directed to file a second amended joint pretrial order consistent with the individual practices of the undersigned and this order on or before January 31, 2004. The Court notes also that defendant's exhibits erroneously are designated with numbers rather than letters as is required.
SO ORDERED.