Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de89> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 9 of
9
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de89 RegisterActionDate "2018-09-06" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de89 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on September 6, 2018. On June 7, 2018, the parties were ordered to submit the agreed proposed final pretrial order by September 4, 2018, and advised that the order must conform to Local Rule 16.1 and Appendix 1 of this district's local rules. On September 4, 2018, at approximately 6:20 p.m. central standard time, Defendant Jones timely filed a 66 proposed pretrial order. See CDIL-LR 5.7(A)(3) ("A document filed electronically by 11:59 p.m. central standard time will be deemed filed on that date."). However, the 66 proposed pretrial order does not include a stipulation of uncontested facts and issues of law signed by all parties, Plaintiff's witness list, Plaintiff's exhibit list, Plaintiff's itemized statement of damages, or Plaintiff's proposed jury instructions. See CDIL-LR 16.1(F) & Appx. 1. No explanation was provided for these omissions. On September 5, 2018, at approximately 4:45 p.m. central standard time, Plaintiff DC748D8 filed, as a motion, a 71 proposed final pretrial order. The 71 motion includes Plaintiff's witness list, exhibit list, statement of damages, and proposed jury instructions. The 71 motion offers no explanation for why it was filed after the September 4, 2018 deadline. The parties' filings do not comply with Local Rule 16.1, which requires parties to submit one final proposed pretrial order with all the components listed therein. The Court is still not in receipt of a stipulation of uncontested facts and issues of law signed by all parties. In addition, it appears that the 66 71 proposed final pretrial orders differ significantly in content. It is not the Court's job to compare the two documents to identify discrepancies. For the reasons stated, the Clerk is directed to STRIKE the 66 67 68 69 70 71 filings. The parties are ORDERED to file, by September 7, 2018, a single proposed final pretrial order that complies with Local Rule 16.1(F) and Appendix 1. The parties are further admonished that failure to comply with Local Rule 16.1 may result in sanctions. See CDIL-LR 16.1(G). (KML, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2018)" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de89 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de89 hasJudgeReference SJ001510 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de89 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de84 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de89 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de85 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de89 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de86 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de89 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de87 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de89 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04025_de88 @default.