Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02887/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02887-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dixie Baker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

D.A.R.A. II, Inc., an Arizona corporation;

Kenneth Presutti and Cyndee Presutti,

husband and wife; Jesse Wintersteen and

Dara Wintersteen, husband and wife; and

Jeffrey J. Presutti. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2887-PHX-LOA

SCHEDULING ORDER

This is the time set for informal Rule 16 scheduling conference. Plaintiff is

represented by counsel, Michael C. McKay. Defendants are represented by counsel, Veronica

L. Manolio. Court reporter is not present.

Counsel and the Court informally discuss trial procedures regarding introducing

exhibits and the absence of unreasonable restrictions to the courtroom podium. Counsel and

the Court view the new electronic courtroom equipment during installation. Counsel are invited

to informally learn how to use the electronic courtroom equipment prior to trial upon informal

request.

Pursuant to the Court’s discussion on, and parties’ agreements to, the deadlines

set forth herein and good cause appearing, the Court will hereinafter set the dates for

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 56 Filed 04/24/08 Page 1 of 11
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

A motion in limine has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as “in a broad sense.

. .any motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence

before the evidence is actually offered. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984);

State v. Superior Court, 108 Ariz. 396, 499 P.2d 152, 153 (1972) (“The primary purpose of

a motion in limine is to avoid disclosing to the jury prejudicial matters which may compel a

mistrial. It should not, except upon a clear showing of non-admissibility, be used to reject

evidence”). 

2 Motions in limine may consist of two principal forms. First, a party may seek to

preclude the opponent from either (1) mentioning or referring to unduly prejudicial,

- 2 -

submission of the Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order, the final pretrial conference, and jury

trial. 

IT IS ORDERED that the attorneys who will be responsible for the trial of the

lawsuit shall prepare and sign a Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order and lodge it with the Clerk

no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 30, 2008. Counsel shall exchange drafts of the

proposed Joint Pretrial Order no later than fourteen (14) days before the submission

deadline.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the content of the Proposed Joint Final

Pretrial Order shall include, but is not limited to, that prescribed in the form of the proposed

Joint Final Pretrial Order attached hereto. Statements made shall not be in the form of a

question, but shall be a concise narrative statement of each party’s contention as to each

uncontested and contested issue.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e)

and 37(c), the Court will not allow the parties to modify the Joint Final Pretrial Order or

introduce at trial any exhibits, witnesses, or other information or to make any objections to

exhibits that were not previously specified and/or disclosed as directed by the Court in the Joint

Final Pretrial Order, except to prevent manifest injustice. Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1132

(9th Cir. 1998); Galdamez v. Potter, 415 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file and serve all motions in

limine1

 no later than Friday, July 18, 2008. Each motion in limine2 shall include the legal basis

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 56 Filed 04/24/08 Page 2 of 11
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

inflammatory, or otherwise inadmissible evidence in an opening statement or (2) eliciting

such evidence from one or more witnesses. This is sometimes referred to as a “prohibitive”

motion. An additional, more proactive form is used affirmatively to secure a favorable

pretrial ruling regarding the admissibility of evidence. This is referred to as a “permissive”

motion. See, 21 Charles Wright & Kenneth Graham Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure:

Evidence § 5037 (1977); Rosengart, The Motion In Limine: The Hidden Arrow in the Federal

Litigator’s Quiver, The Federal lawyer (June, 2001).

3 The Ninth Circuit has held that a properly-made motion in limine will preserve the

appellant’s objection on appeal without the need for further objection at trial if it contains

specific grounds for the objection. Palmerin v. City of Riverside, 794 F.2d 1409, 1413 (9th

Cir. 1986). Also see, Rule 103(a), Fed. Rules of Evid.

- 3 -

supporting it. Responses to motions in limine are due by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 30,

2008. Replies are not be permitted. The attorneys for all parties shall come to the Final Pretrial

Conference prepared to address and argue the merits of all pending motions. Redundant

objections to a motion in limine shall not be made during trial.3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the attorneys for each party who will be

responsible for trial of this lawsuit shall appear and participate in a Final Pretrial Conference

on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 302 on the third floor of the

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 E. Washington, Phoenix, Arizona, 85003-2120.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if either side intends to call an expert witness

and there is some question about an expert’s qualifications and/or the reliability of his/her

opinion(s), adverse counsel shall file a Daubert motion to preclude or limit the expert’s

testimony pursuant to the Court’s “gate keeping” function no later than Friday, July 18, 2008.

Fed.R.Evid. 702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho

Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); Clausen v. M/V New Carissa, 339 F.3d 1049,

1056 (9th Cir.2003) (“Scientific evidence is deemed reliable if the principles and methodology

used by an expert are grounded in the methods of science.”). Responses and Replies, if any,

shall be timely filed as required by law. LRCiv 7.2(c) and (d). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting the trial of this matter to a jury,

beginning on Monday, September 8, 2008 through Friday, September 12, 2008 (five trial

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 56 Filed 04/24/08 Page 3 of 11
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 4 Only jury selection and opening statements will occur on the first day.

- 4 -

days - 2 each side - after jury selection and opening statements on the first day4) in Courtroom

302 on the third floor of the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 E. Washington,

Phoenix, Arizona. Unless otherwise ordered, the start time for each trial day shall be from

10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Counsel shall be in or near the

courtroom every day by 9:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. in the event issues develop that need to be

resolved outside the presence of the jury.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall keep the Court apprised of

the possibility of settlement and should settlement be reached, the parties shall immediately file

a Notice of Settlement with the Clerk of the Court with a copy to this Court's chambers. LRCiv.

40.2(d). Settlement negotiations do not constitute good cause to continue the deadlines and

dates set herein as these are real and will be enforced by the Court. Hostnut.Com, Inc.v. Go

Daddy Software, Inc., 2006 WL 2573201 *1 (D. Ariz. 2006); Schwartz v. Home Depot U.S.A.,

Inc., CV-06-2168-PHX-FJM (“[C]haracterization of the trial date as a ‘first setting,’ . . . ignores

the fact that under the Rule 16 scheduling order, the trial date is firm and the parties were

advised of that. In this court, the first setting is the last setting absent extraordinary

circumstances (like death), which obviously are not present here.” (docket # 83 at 2 in CV-06-

2168-PHX-FJM).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court views compliance with the

provisions of this Order as critical to its case management responsibilities and the

responsibilities of the parties under Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 24th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 56 Filed 04/24/08 Page 4 of 11
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 - 5 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

(Names of Plaintiff(s) , 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs.

(Names of Defendant(s) , 

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV- - -PHX-LOA

PROPOSED JOINT FINAL

PRETRIAL ORDER

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order/Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference entered on

 , 2000, the following is the Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order

to be considered at the Final Pretrial Conference set for , 2000.

A. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

(Include mailing address, office phone and fax numbers).

Plaintiff(s):

Defendant(s): 

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 56 Filed 04/24/08 Page 5 of 11
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

- 6 -

B. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. Cite the statute(s) which give this Court

jurisdiction.

(e.g., Jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of

citizenship under Title 28 U.S.C. §1332.)

Jurisdiction (is/is not) disputed.

 (If jurisdiction is disputed, the party contesting

 jurisdiction shall set forth with specificity the

 bass for the objection.)

C. NATURE OF ACTION. Provide a concise statement of the type of case, the cause

of the action, and the relief sought.

(e.g., - This is a products liability case wherein the plaintiff 

seeks damages for personal injuries sustained when he fell

from the driver’s seat of a forklift. The plaintiff contends

that the forklift was defectively designed and manufactured

by the defendant and that the defects were a producing 

cause of his injuries and damages.)

D. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. With respect to each count of the

complaint, counterclaim or cross-claim, and to any defense, affirmative defense, or the

rebuttal of a presumption where the burden of proof has shifted, the party having the burden

of proof shall list the elements or standards that must be proved in order for the party to

prevail on that claim or defense. Citation to relevant legal authority is required. 

(e.g., In order to prevail on this products liability case, the

plaintiff must prove the following elements . . . . . 

e.g., In order to defeat this products liability claim based

on the status of repose, the defendant must prove the

following elements. . . .)

E. STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS

 1. The following facts are admitted by the parties

and require no proof:

 2. The following facts, although not admitted, will 

not be contested at trial by evidence to the contrary:

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 56 Filed 04/24/08 Page 6 of 11
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

- 7 -

F. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW

 1. The following are the issues of fact to be tried and decided:

(Each issue of fact must be stated separately and in

specific terms. Each parties’ contention as to each

issue must be set forth with respect to each and every

issue of fact). E.g.,

 Issue #1: Whether Plaintiff used due care.

 Plaintiff Contends: Plaintiff looked both

 ways before stepping into the street. . . 

 Defendant Contends: Plaintiff was 

 chasing a ball and darted out into the

 street without looking. . . .

2. The following are the issues of law to be tried and determined:

 (Each issue of law must be stated separately and in specific 

 terms. Each parties’ contention as to each issue must be set

 forth with respect to each and every issue of law). E.g.,

 Issue #1: Whether Plaintiff’s suit is barred by the

 doctrine of laches.

 Plaintiff Contends: . . . . .

 Defendant Contends: . . . . .

G. LIST OF WITNESSES. A jointly prepared list of witnesses and their respective

addresses, identifying each as either plaintiff’s or defendant’s, and indicating whether a fact

or expert witness, must accompany this proposed order. If a witness’ address is unknown,

it should be so stated. A brief statement as to the testimony of each witness must also be

included. Additionally, the parties shall designate which witnesses (1) shall be called at trial,

(2) may be called at trial, and (3) are unlikely to be called at trial.

Additionally, the parties shall include the following text in this portion of the

Proposed Pretrial Order.

. . .

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 56 Filed 04/24/08 Page 7 of 11
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

- 8 -

The parties understand that the Court has put them on

notice that they are responsible for ensuring that the

witnesses they want to put on the stand to testify are

subpoenaed to testify, regardless of whether the 

intended witness is listed as a witness for the plaintiff(s)

or the defendant(s). Simply because a party lists a

a witness does not mean that the witness will be called.

Therefore, a party should not rely on the listing of a 

witness by the opposing party as an indication that

the witness will be called. To the extent possible, the 

parties shall stipulate to the witnesses that will be called

to testify.

H. LIST OF EXHIBITS.

A. The following exhibits are admissible in evidence and may be marked in

evidence by the Clerk:

 1. Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

 2. Defendant’s Exhibits:

B. As to the following exhibits, the parties have reached the following

stipulations:

 1. Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

 2. Defendant’s Exhibits:

C. As to the following exhibits, the party against whom the exhibit is to 

be offered objects to the admission of the exhibit and offers the objection

stated beneath:

 1. Plaintiff’s Exhibits: E.g.,

City Hospital records of Plaintiff from

March 6, 1985, through March 22, 1985. 

Defendant objects for lack of foundation 

because. . . . (The objection must

specify why there is a lack of foundation).

 2. Defendant’s Exhibits: E.g.,

Payroll records of Plaintiff’s employer

which evidences payment of Plaintiff’s

salary during hospitalization and 

recovery. Plaintiff objects on the ground

of relevance and materiality because (the

objection must specify why there is 

 relevancy or materiality problem).

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 56 Filed 04/24/08 Page 8 of 11
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

- 9 -

I. DEPOSITIONS TO BE OFFERED. The parties shall list the depositions to be

used at trial if any witness will be unavailable for trial. It is necessary to identify the portions

of depositions that will be read at trial by page and line number. Counsel should note

objections to deposition testimony by setting forth all objections thereto to the specific

question(s) and/or answer(s). Moreover, these objections shall be explained in this portion

of the Proposed Pretrial Order. As is the Court’s practice at trial, it is not sufficient for an

objecting party to simply state perfunctory grounds for an objection (e.g., “hearsay” or “lack

of foundation”) contained in the Proposed Pretrial Order. Each party must explain the basis

for each perfunctory objection (e.g., why it lacks foundation, why it is irrelevant).

J. MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Motions in limine shall be served, filed and responded

to in accordance with the instructions contained in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order.

K. LIST OF ANY PENDING MOTIONS

L. PROBABLE LENGTH OF TRIAL

M. JURY DEMAND - a jury trial (has) (has not) been requested. If a jury trial was

 Requested, (indicate the appropriate selection):

 1. the parties stipulate the request was timely and properly made;

 2. the (Plaintiff or Defendant) contends the request was untimely 

 made because: (explain why request was untimely); or

 3. the (Plaintiff or Defendant) contends that although the request

for trial by a jury was timely, the request is improper as a 

matter of law because: (indicate the legal basis why a jury

trial would be improper).

For a Bench Trial

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 56 Filed 04/24/08 Page 9 of 11
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

- 10 -

N-1. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW shall be

filed and served by each party in accordance with the instructions contained in the Rule 16

Scheduling Order.

For a Jury Trial

N-2. (Jury Trial) STIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, PROPOSED VOIR DIRE

QUESTIONS AND PROPOSED FORMS OF VERDICT shall be filed in accordance with

the instructions contained in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order.

O. CERTIFICATIONS. The undersigned counsel for each of the parties in this action

do hereby certify and acknowledge the following:

 1. All discovery has been completed.

 2. The identity of each witness has been disclosed to opposing counsel.

 3. Each exhibit listed herein (a) is in existence; (b) is numbered; and (c) has been

disclosed and shown to opposing counsel.

 4. The parties have complied in all respects with the mandates of the Court’s Rule

16 Order.

/ / / 

/ / /

 5. [Unless otherwise previously ordered to the contrary], the parties have made all

of the disclosures required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 56 Filed 04/24/08 Page 10 of 11
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

- 11 -

 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) Attorney for Defendant(s)

P. ORDER

 IT IS ORDERED that this Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order jointly submitted

by the parties is hereby APPROVED and is thereby ADOPTED as the official Final Pretrial

Order of this Court.

 DATED this day of 2008.

 

 Lawrence O. Anderson

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 56 Filed 04/24/08 Page 11 of 11