Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01575/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01575-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

1 The court notes that it has been compelled to expend an

unreasonable amount of time sorting through the parties'

objections, many of which concern disputed and undisputed facts

which were addressed in the court's August 2, 2005 order. 

Defendant insists on resubmitting a number of facts that the court

has found to be undisputed in that order. The court notes that at

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HEALY,

NO. CIV. S-02-1575 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK

SERVICE, INC., a Delaware,

corporation; ELECTRONIC

DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION,

a foreign corporation; and 

EDS/SHL CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of the parties' objections to the

tentative pretrial conference order. A final pretrial order

will issue.1 The court, however, additionally ORDERS as

Case 2:02-cv-01575-LKK -DAD Document 116 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 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

the time of the motion, the defendant did not reserve the right to

contest facts conceded solely for purposes of the motion for

summary adjudication; accordingly, the court’s determination of

undisputed facts in that order renders them presently undisputed.

2 Indeed, as defendant notes, although the court has directed

plaintiff to submit revised lists of exhibits, plaintiff has

continued to defy such order by continuing to list as a single

exhibit compilations of numerous documents, many unnumbered and

totaling hundreds of pages. Plaintiff is given one final

opportunity to submit an exhibit list that consists of one document

per exhibit. If that exhibit contains numerous pages, plaintiff

must specify which pages of that document will be presented during

trial. Plaintiff is reminded that exhibits submitted to the court

as an attachment to the pretrial order must be done with the intent

that it will be utilized during trial. Plaintiff is hereby warned

that any documents submitted superfluously or which results in

unnecessary squandering of court resources will result in

sanctions. 

3 The court has, on numerous occasions, noted to counsel that

the attorney appearing during the Pretrial Conference will be lead

counsel on the case. 

2

follows:

1. Plaintiff is directed to resubmit a proposed exhibit

list, which will be electronically filed no later than October

21, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. The parties are also directed to

informally exchange copies of exhibits as contemplated by the

tentative pretrial order. Any objections made by defendant to

this list of exhibits will be taken up during the first day of

trial.2

2. Plaintiff's request that the court augment its pretrial

order to list Ross R. Nott as lead counsel on plaintiff's behalf

is DENIED.3

3. Plaintiff is ordered to resubmit the specific discovery

documents which he intends to offer in his case-in-chief, rather

Case 2:02-cv-01575-LKK -DAD Document 116 Filed 10/19/05 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

4 Plaintiff explains that he intends to present such evidence

to show that EDS has "thwart[ed] the discovery process." The court

again reminds plaintiff that the discovery documents submitted with

the pretrial order are those which he intends to present in his

case-in-chief. 

3

than identifying the entirety of EDS's responses no later than

4:00 p.m. on October 21, 2005.4

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 19, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:02-cv-01575-LKK -DAD Document 116 Filed 10/19/05 Page 3 of 3