Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05474/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05474-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREG BRAUN, Plan Agent for Coast CASE NO. CV-F-04-5474 LJO

Grain Company,

Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED

ADDITIONAL DISPUTED FACTS AND

vs. POINTS OF LAW

(Doc. 66.)

THOMAS O’BRIEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On January 24, 2006, plaintiff Greg Braun (“plaintiff”), plan agent for Coast Grain Company,

and defendants Thomas O’Brien and Dairy Feed Group (collectively “defendants”) filed their joint

pretrial statement for the January 31, 2006 pretrial conference at which defense counsel requested to add

disputed facts and points of law to include in the pretrial order. Defense counsel gave this Court and

plaintiff’s counsel the impression that defense counsel would seek to add, at most and if any, a few

overlooked, minor disputed facts and points of law.

During the afternoon of January 31, 2006, defendants submitted 26 proposed additional disputed

facts and seven points of law. On February 1, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the proposed additional

disputed facts and points of law to contend, among other things, that the proposed additional disputed

facts and points of law were untimely and would greatly expand the scope of trial to render the January

31, 2006 pretrial conference meaningless. Plaintiff also raised substantive objections to the merits of

the proposed additional disputed facts and points of law. Defense counsel responded with his

declaration to claim that the parties waived objections to “facts not listed as disputed” in that the joint

pretrial conference statement noted that all facts other than undisputed facts are disputed.

F.R.Civ.P. 16(d) mandates that his Court conduct a final pretrial conference during which the

participants “shall formulate a plan for trial.” This Court’s Local Rule 16-281(b) requires parties to file

Case 1:04-cv-05474-NEW Document 71 Filed 02/02/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

a pretrial statement to include, among other things, disputed factual issues and points of law. As to

disputed factual issues, Local Rule 16-281(b)(3) requires a “plain, concise statement of each fact (and

any related essential facts) that the party claims or concedes to be in dispute.” (Bold added.) As to

points of law, Local Rule 281(b)(8) requires a “statement of the legal theory or theories of recovery or

of defense and of any points of law (substantive or procedural) that are or may reasonably be expected

to be in controversy, citing the pertinent statutes, ordinances, regulations, cases and other authorities

relied upon.” (Bold added.)

To put it mildly, defendants’ proposed additional 26 disputed facts and seven points of law mock

the pretrial statement requirements, pretrial conference and, in particular, the seriousness of the matters

to be addressed at the pretrial conference. This Court would need to conduct another pretrial conference

if it were to allow such mockery, that is, addition of defendant’s proposed disputed facts and points of

law, in that neither this Court, plaintiffs nor apparently defense counsel were prepared or able to address

such matters at the pretrial conference. This Court and its rules impose on defendants and their counsel

the obligation to prepare a pretrial statement timely, adequately and completely to ensure a meaningful

pretrial conference and pretrial order and to promote the efficient and effective use ofthe parties and this

Court’s time and resources at trial and in preparation of it. An overbroad claim that all facts are disputed

excepted listed undisputed facts does not relieve the parties of their obligation to comply with pretrial

statement requirements. Moreover, plaintiffs assert well founded specific objections to defendant’s

proposed additional disputed facts and points of law.

This Court DENIES defendants’ request to add 26 proposed disputed facts and seven points of

law to the pretrial order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05474-NEW Document 71 Filed 02/02/06 Page 2 of 2