Opinion
2:22-CV-1813 JCM (NJK)
08-07-2023
JAMES SANDERS, Plaintiff(s), v. WALMART, INC. d/b/a WALMART SUPERCENTER STORE #2592, et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER
Presently before the court is the parties' proposed joint pretrial order. (ECF No. 15). It fails to comply with the local rules in two ways. First, it lists no issues of law and simply states that “[t]he parties do not anticipate any unique questions of law to be determined at trial.” (Id. at 3). However, the pretrial order is to contain all contested issues of law, not just unique issues of law.
Second, defendant's witness list is incomplete. It lists witnesses such as “Plaintiff's treatment providers,” and “Plaintiff's employers.” (Id. at 7-8). Local Rule 16-3(b)(12) requires that the parties list each witness and their address. Thus, defendant's generalized list is an insufficient disclosure that gives the court no information. How many treatment providers do they plan to call, for example? Does that number comport with the proposed length of trial the parties set forth. As it stands, the court does not know and it cannot schedule this matter appropriately.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the joint pretrial order (ECF No. 15) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file an amended pretrial order on o before Friday, August 11, 2023.