Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05966/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05966-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN HUNT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-05966-HSG 

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED 

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

On October 29, 2015, the parties separately filed what appears to be an unfinalized set of 

revised proposed jury instructions. See Dkt. Nos. 233, 234. Defendant states that it “has not had 

sufficient opportunity to review [the filed set of revised proposed jury instructions], and cannot 

confirm that it represents [Defendant’s] positions.” Dkt. No. 234. Once again, the parties have 

failed to jointly file a document, in violation of the Court’s order. See Dkt. No. 214. When the 

Court orders a document to be filed jointly, the Court expects the parties to meet and confer, come 

to an agreement, and make a truly joint filing. Any unresolved disputes regarding particular 

proposed jury instructions should be fully framed in the filing itself. Separately filed statements 

attaching email exchanges detailing the parties’ disputes do not meet this requirement, and the 

Court views such filings as entirely unhelpful. It is the parties’ responsibility to reach agreement 

where possible and to clearly frame any remaining genuine disputes, not the Court’s responsibility 

to sift through a hodgepodge of filings in which the parties disclaim any ability even to confirm 

what has or has not been agreed upon. The parties are directed, again, to meet and confer and file 

a jointly agreed upon set of revised proposed jury instructions by November 18, 2015. 

//

//

Case 4:13-cv-05966-HSG Document 239 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Additionally, on October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed “her understanding of what the parties 

have agreed upon after further meeting and conferring regarding the joint proposed voir dire 

questions.” Dkt. No. 235. If Defendant does not agree that Plaintiff’s filing reflects the parties’ 

joint proposed voir dire questions (and objections), the parties shall meet and confer and jointly 

file any revised proposed voir dire questions by November 18, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2015

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-05966-HSG Document 239 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 2