Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

SRM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Andre Almond Dennison, Plaintiff -vsConrad Luna, et al., Defendant(s) CV-03-2373-PHX-SRB (JI) ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

On October 24, 2006, Defendants filed a "joint" Proposed Pretrial Order (#140), Statement of the Case (#139), Voir Dire (#141), and Proposed Jury Instructions (#142), without the concurrence of Plaintiff. A note to the proposed order relates a dispute between the parties as to whether prior defense counsel had stipulated to various facts. According to Defendants, the culmination of that dispute was that Defendants offered to include the disputed facts in Plaintiff's contested facts section, but Plaintiff refused to re-enumerate the supposed stipulations. To date, the parties have apparently not resolved the matter. In the meantime, Plaintiff has now filed a Motion to Extend (#143), seeking an extension of time to move to strike, and a Motion to Strike (#145) Defendants' various "jointly" filed documents. Defendants have now responded (#144) to the motion to extend, indicating no opposition to an extension of time, but seeking guidance for Plaintiff in how to proceed. The Court notes that Judge Bolton, to whom this case is assigned, requires that the parties submit together with the jointly proposed pretrial order a "stipulated proposed statement of the case, jury Instructions, voir dire questions, juror questionnaires, if any, forms of verdict and trial memorandum of law." Judge Bolton further directs that "Instructions which are not agreed upon shall include citation to authority and be filed and served on each party by the date of the Pretrial Conference."
Case 2:03-cv-02373-SRB

(See http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/azd/
Page 1 of 3

Document 147 - 1 Filed 11/21/2006

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Contacts.nsf/551417512BEB4A1B07256F66006A4EE6/$file/SRB+jt+proposed+pretrial +order.pdf?openelement, last accessed 11/14/6.) In light of the Court's addressing the parties' dispute sua sponte, the extension is moot, as is the Motion to Strike. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have ten days from the filing of this Order to serve on Defendants and file with the Court: (1) a notice enumerating the alleged stipulated facts and identifying the circumstances under which Plaintiff believes a stipulation was made, including the date, time, parties, evidences of an agreement, etc., and (2) any other modifications requested by Plaintiff to the jointly proposed pretrial order, statement of the case, jury instructions, voir dire questions, juror questionnaires, and if any forms of verdict and trial memorandum of law. In the event Plaintiff fails to do so, this action shall be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon service of Plaintiff's notice and proposed modifications, Defendants shall prepare a revised draft of the Proposed Pretrial Order which shall include a separate section listing the alleged stipulated facts, and noting the existence of the dispute between the parties about the existence of the stipulation, and shall confer with Plaintiff on accommodating any additional modifications requested by Plaintiff to the various "jointly" filed documents. Those modifications requested by a party, to which the others cannot agree, shall be included in the various filings, and shall be identified as disputed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have twenty-five days from the filing of this Order to submit their jointly proposed pretrial order, and the other required filings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the parties are not able to resolve their differences, Defendants shall, within thirty days of the filing of this Order, arrange for a telephonic conference between the Court and the parties. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, filed November 7, 2006 (#143) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, filed November 13,
Case 2:03-cv-02373-SRB Document 147 - 2 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2006 (#145) is DENIED.

DATED: November 21, 2006
S:\Drafts\OutBox\03-2373-o Order 06 11 06 re JtPretrialOrder.wpd

_____________________________________ JAY R. IRWIN United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02373-SRB

Document 147 - 3 Filed 11/21/2006

Page 3 of 3