Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00927/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00927-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

 The caption has been amended according to the Dismissal

of Doe Defendants portion of this Order.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOLORES ESTRADA; TINA DUNCAN; )

MANUEAL ESTRADA, JR.; DAVID ) 2:05-cv-0927-GEB-EFB

ESTRADA; ARLENE GREEN; and )

DOLORES ESTRADA, as successor ) FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

in interest of the estate of )

MANUEL ESTRADA, SR., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 

)

v. ) 

)

GENIE INDUSTRIES, INC., a )

Washington corporation; and )

UNITED RENTALS, INC., a )

Delaware corporation, )

)

Defendants.1 )

)

The final pretrial conference scheduled for February 12,

2007, is vacated since the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement filed

February 5, 2007 (“JPS”) indicates this Final Pretrial Order should

issue. 

I. DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS

Since Plaintiffs have not justified Doe defendants

remaining in this action, Does 1 through 50 are dismissed. See

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 1 of 18
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 The parties’ agreement in their JPS that the Judge will

decide certain issues is unclear and therefore has not been

adopted. If clarification on precisely what the parties expect the

Judge to decide is provided, this portion of the Order could be

reconsidered.

2

Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed May 12,

2005, at 2 n.2 (indicating that if Plaintiffs failed to set forth

in the Joint Status Report a date by when the identities of any

“Doe” defendants were expected to be discovered, the claims against

Doe defendants would be deemed abandoned and a dismissal order

would follow).

II. JURY/NON-JURY

All issues shall be tried to a jury.2

III. UNDISPUTED FACTS

On March 22, 2004, Manuel Estrada, Sr. was injured while

working for Monier Lifetile, Inc. at its plant in French Camp,

California. At the time of the accident, Estrada was operating an

articulating boom, designed and manufactured by Genie. Monier

LifeTile, Inc. had rented the articulating boom from United

Rentals. There were no witnesses to the accident. On March 31,

2004, Manuel Estrada died as a result of injuries from the

accident. Plaintiffs are the wife and four adult children of

Estrada. 

IV. FACTUAL, LEGAL AND/OR EQUITABLE CONTENTIONS

A. The Final Pretrial Order supersedes the pleadings

and controls the facts and claims which may be presented at trial. 

Any legal theory of relief or affirmative defense asserted in the

pleadings but not preserved for trial in this section of the Final

Pretrial Order cannot be raised during the trial. Therefore, to

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 18
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

3

preserve an issue for trial, and to be entitled to jury

instructions on that issue, the issue shall be identified and

preserved in this section of the Order. Failure to do so

dismisses, waives or abandons that issue, claim or defense. 

Hotel Emp., et al. Health Tr. v. Elks Lodge 1450, 827 F.2d 1324,

1329 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Issues not preserved in the pretrial order

are eliminated from the action.”).

B. The following issues are preserved for trial provided

jury instructions are submitted as required by Section XIII of this

Order:

Plaintiffs’ Claims:

1. Negligence

Plaintiffs claim Defendants negligently designed the

aerial platform control panel because it was not properly guarded

to prevent the operator from inadvertently leaning over and pushing

the controls. The lack of a physical guard precluded Estrada from

extricating himself because the overhead cable tray folded him over

the control panel, causing him to depress the emergency stop

switch. Estrada was crushed between the overhead cable tray and

the control panel, precluding him from operating the controls so he

could lower the aerial platform. Defendants' failure to have a

physical guard over the control panel violated Section 3642(d) of

Title 8, California Code of Regulations, General Industry Safety

Orders, and Section Four of the American National Standard

Institute's (ANSI) rules for “Boom-supported Elevating Work

Platforms.” Defendants were further negligent because of the

unsafe placement and location of the controls used to operate the

aerial platform. Defendants were further negligent because, before

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 3 of 18
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

the incident, they became aware of the foregoing defects of the

aerial platform's control panel and redesigned the newly

manufactured with a physical guard on their aerial platform control

panels. However, the defendants did not institute a retrofit

program for the existing aerial platform control panels until after

the incident.

United Rentals was further negligent because it failed to

properly train and provide Estrada with the proper manual to use

the aerial platform and control panel in violation of its duties

under Section Five of ANSI’s rules for boom-supported elevating

work platforms. United Rentals’ failure to provide the proper

manual further violated Section 3638 of Title 8, California Code of

Regulations, General Industry Safety Orders.

As a result of Defendants’ foregoing negligence, Estrada

suffered severe and permanent injuries which subsequently caused

his death. Plaintiffs seek past and future economic damages for

loss of Estrada’s financial support, gifts, benefits, household

services, and funeral and burial related expenses. 

Plaintiffs seek non-economic damages for loss of

Estrada’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance,

protection, affection, society, and moral support. Plaintiffs will

further seek costs of suit, pre-judgment interest, and other costs

which the court may deem proper.

2. Strict products liability

Plaintiffs claim the Defendants’ aerial platform’s design

was defective under both the consumer expectation test and the

risk-benefit test. The aerial platform did not perform as safely as

an ordinary consumer would have expected at the time of use because

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 4 of 18
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

the control panel was not properly guarded to prevent inadvertent

operation. The lack of a physical guard precluded Estrada from

extricating himself once the overhead cable tray, which folded him

over the control panel, caused his upper torso to depress the

emergency stop switch. Estrada was unable to extricate himself

because he was crushed between the cable tray and control panel,

precluding him from operating the controls so he could lower the

aerial platform. The aerial platform was further defective in

design because of the unsafe placement and location of the controls

to safely operate the aerial platform. 

Plaintiffs contend Defendants knew of the defective

design of their aerial platform control panel before the Estrada

incident. Plaintiffs argue Defendants changed the design of the

control panel to add a physical guard on all its newly manufactured

aerial platforms, but did not institute a retrofit program for its

existing aerial platforms until after the Estrada incident. 

Plaintiffs also contend Defendants are further strictly

liable under the risk-benefit test. The aerial platform was

defective because the risk inherent in the design outweighed the

benefits of the design. Defendants’ aerial platform was not

properly guarded as required under Cal-OSHA section 3642(d) and

section Four of the ANSI’s rules for “Boom-Supported Elevating Work

Platforms.” The aerial platform’s design was further defective

because of the unsafe placement and location of the controls. 

Plaintiffs contend Defendants cannot prove that the

benefits of the design of the aerial platform control panel

outweigh the risks. 

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 5 of 18
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

As a result of the design defect in Defendants’ aerial

platform under either the consumer expectation test or the

risk-benefit test, Estrada suffered severe and permanent injuries

which subsequently cause his death. 

Plaintiffs seek past and future economic damages for loss

of Estrada’s financial support, gifts, benefits, household

services, and funeral and burial related expenses. Plaintiffs seek

non-economic damages for loss of Estrada’s love, companionship,

comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and

moral support. Plaintiffs will further seek costs of suit,

pre-judgment interest, and other costs which the court may deem

proper.

Defendants’ Claims:

Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ contentions as to

liability, causation, and damages with respect to all of

Plaintiffs’ claims. 

Affirmative Defenses:

a. Defendants claim that the decedent was negligent in

his operation of the articulating boom, and that his negligence was

a substantial factor in causing the accident in question.

b. Defendants claim that the decedent voluntarily

assumed an unreasonable risk in his operation of the articulating

boom with knowledge of that risk, and that Plaintiffs’ claims are

barred on that basis.

c. Defendants claim that the decedent’s employer Monier

Lifetile, Inc. was negligent in failing to provide proper training

to its employees, including the decedent, and failing to adopt

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 6 of 18
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

adequate policies and procedures relating to the use of

articulating booms in the workplace. 

d. Defendants claim that Plaintiffs received workers

compensation benefits and/or other income and benefits as a result

of the decedent’s death, and that any recovery to Plaintiffs should

be diminished by the amount of those benefits. 

e. Defendants claim that Plaintiffs received settlement

payments from other parties, and that any recovery to Plaintiffs

should be diminished by the amount of those payments.

f. Defendants claim that Plaintiffs’ claims for breach

of warranty are barred, in whole or in part, by the warranty

exclusions and/or remedy limitations applicable to any warranty, if

made, allegedly provided by defendants, and because of the

expiration of the allegedly applicable warranties.

g. Defendants claim that the accident in question

resulted from a misuse of the articulating boom.

 C. In addition to the matters set forth in Local Rule

16-285, the parties shall brief the following points of law in

their trial briefs. 

1. The elements, standards, and burdens of proof as

to each of Plaintiffs’ causes of action, including citations of

authority in support thereof.

2. The elements, standards, and burdens of proof

as to each of Defendants’ defenses, including citations of

authority in support thereof.

Notwithstanding Local Rule 16-285, trial briefs shall be

filed with the Court no later than twenty (20) court days prior to

the date of trial. A joint or partial joint trial brief is

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 7 of 18
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

3 This portion of the Order does not affect the parties’

obligations to timely comply with witness disclosure requirements

provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules,

or by Order of this Court.

8

permitted. All legal positions briefed in the trial brief shall be

supported with case and applicable statutory authority. See Local

Rule 16-285. If separate or partial separate trial briefs are

submitted, responding briefs, if any, shall be filed with the Court

no later than five (5) court days prior to trial. The trial

brief(s) must include “a summary of points of law, including

reasonably anticipated disputes concerning admissibility of

evidence, legal arguments, and citations of authority in support

thereof.” Local Rule 16-285(a)(3).

V. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

Defendant Genie Industries, Inc.’s Daubert motion is

scheduled for hearing to commence at 9:00 a.m. on February 20,

2007.

Any other evidentiary dispute capable of being resolved

in limine shall be set forth in an in limine motion which shall be

filed no later than March 5, 2007. An opposition or a nonopposition statement to any filed in limine motion shall be filed

no later than March 19, 2007. Failure to state a basis for

admissibility or non-admissibility of disputed evidence constitutes

a waiver or abandonment of that basis. 

VI. WITNESSES3

A. Plaintiffs anticipate calling the witnesses listed on

Exhibit 1 to the JPS.

B. Defendant United Rentals, Inc. anticipates calling

the witnesses listed on Exhibit 2 to the JPS.

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 8 of 18
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

C. Defendant Genie Industries, Inc. anticipates calling

the witnesses listed on Exhibit 3 to the JPS.

D. Each party may call a witness designated by another

party.

E. No person, other than those named on these witness

lists, will be permitted to testify unless:

(1) The party offering the witness demonstrates that

the witness is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could

not reasonably be anticipated at the pretrial conference; or

(2) The witness was discovered after the pretrial

conference and the proffering party makes the showing required in

“F”, below.

F. If a witness is discovered after the pretrial

conference, counsel for the party offering the witness shall

promptly inform the Court and opposing parties of the existence of

the unlisted witness so that the Court may consider at trial

whether the witness shall be permitted to testify. The witness

will be not be permitted to testify unless:

(1) The witness could not reasonably have been

discovered prior to pretrial;

(2) The Court and opposing counsel were promptly

notified upon discovery of the witness;

(3) If time permitted, counsel offered the witness

for deposition; and

(4) If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of

the witness’ testimony was provided to opposing counsel.

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 9 of 18
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 This portion of the Order does not affect the parties’

obligations to timely comply with disclosure requirements provided

in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, or by

Order of this Court.

10

VII. EXHIBITS4

A. Plaintiffs anticipate offering the exhibits listed on

Exhibit 4 to the JPS.

B. Defendant United Rentals, Inc. anticipates offering

the exhibits listed on Exhibit 5 to the JPS.

C. Defendant Genie Industries, Inc. anticipates offering

the exhibits listed on Exhibit 6 to the JPS.

D. No other exhibits will be permitted to be introduced

unless:

(1) The party seeking to use the unlisted exhibit

demonstrates that the exhibit is being used to rebut evidence which

could not reasonably have been anticipated at the pretrial

conference; or

(2) The unlisted exhibit was discovered after the

pretrial conference and the offering party makes the showing

required in paragraph “E”, below.

E. Any party proposing to introduce an exhibit which was

discovered after the pretrial conference shall promptly notify the

Court and opposing counsel of the existence of such exhibit. The

Court will not permit any such exhibit to be introduced unless it

finds:

(1) That the exhibit could not reasonably have been

discovered prior to the pretrial conference;

(2) The Court and counsel were promptly informed of

the exhibit’s existence; and

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 10 of 18
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 The parties have leave to file joint exhibits. The above

procedure is designed for separate exhibits.

11

(3) That the offering party has delivered a copy of

the exhibit to opposing counsel, or, if the exhibit may not be

copied, that the offering counsel has made the exhibit reasonably

available for inspection by opposing counsel. 

F. Plaintiffs’ exhibits shall be numbered and marked

with colored stickers provided by the Court while Defendants’

exhibits shall be designated by alphabetical letter also marked

with colored stickers provided by the Court. To obtain stickers,

parties should contact the Clerk of Court at (916) 930-4000.

The parties are directed to exchange with each other, at

least twenty (20) court days prior to trial, copies of all of their

respective exhibits, marked with exhibit stickers provided by the

Court. Within five (5) court days after receipt and examination of

the exhibits, each party shall file with the Court and serve upon

opposing counsel objections, if any, to the exhibits, referencing

the exhibits as marked by exhibit sticker and specifying the basis

for each objection.5

 Failure to exchange exhibits as ordered could

result in the exhibit not being used at trial and/or the imposition

of sanctions. The failure to make objections in the manner

prescribed by this section shall constitute a waiver of objections. 

A party seeking to admit into evidence an exhibit to which no

objection was made must identify said exhibit for the record and

then move it into evidence. 

Counsel shall produce all exhibits to the Clerk’s Office

on the Friday before the before trial date, no later than 4:00 p.m. 

At that time, the parties shall also furnish the Court with a copy

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 11 of 18
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 Counsel for the parties are required to meet and confer

on whether it is appropriate to submit any documents to the judge

prior to trial. If the parties decide this is appropriate, they

shall reflect their agreement in a stipulation which has attached

thereto whatever documents they agree can be considered by the

judge before trial. The stipulation should be filed and submitted

to the judge’s chambers at the parties’ earliest convenience.

12

of each exhibit, unless the exhibit is physically incapable of

being reproduced. Failure to produce exhibits as ordered could

result in waiver of the right to offer those exhibits. Each party

submitting exhibits shall furnish a list to the Court, the

courtroom deputy and opposing counsel itemizing the exhibits. 

VIII. FURTHER PREPARATION FOR USE OF DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS6

A. It is the duty of counsel to ensure that any

depositions which are to be used at trial for any purpose shall

have been filed with the clerk, and counsel are cautioned that a

failure to discharge this duty may result in preclusion of the use

of the unfiled depositions or in the imposition of such other

sanctions as the Court deems appropriate.

B. No later than twenty (20) court days before the trial

commencement date, counsel for each party shall serve on the other

parties a statement designating all answers to interrogatories and

all portions of depositions (except for passages to be used solely

for refreshing recollection, impeachment or rebuttal). No later

than ten (10) court days before the trial commencement date,

counter-designations of other portions of these discovery documents

may be served. No later than five (5) court days before trial, the

parties shall file and serve any preserved evidentiary objections

to any designated discovery, or said objections are waived.

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 12 of 18
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

13

IX. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

Pursuant to the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order, all

discovery and law and motion was to have been completed prior to

the date of the final pretrial conference. That order is

confirmed. The parties are, of course, free to conduct any

additional discovery they desire pursuant to informal agreement. 

However, any such agreement will not be enforceable in this Court.

X. STIPULATIONS

The parties stipulate to waiving authentication

requirements for trial exhibits.

XI. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

No settlement conference is scheduled in this matter. If

the parties believe that a settlement conference would be

productive and facilitate resolution of this case, the parties may

contact the Court. If the Court schedules a settlement conference

at the request of the parties, each party would be directed to have

a principal with authority to settle the case on any terms present

at the settlement conference. 

In addition, each party would have to submit a settlement

conference statement directly to the chambers of the settlement

judge, five (5) court days prior to the settlement conference. 

Such statements would not have to be filed with the clerk nor

served on opposing counsel. However, each would be required to

notify the other party or parties that the statement was submitted

to the judge’s chambers.

XII. AGREED STATEMENT

The parties shall submit a short, jointly-prepared

statement concerning the nature of this case that can be read to

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 13 of 18
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

14

the jury at the commencement of trial. The statement shall be

provided to the Court no later than ten (10) court days before the

commencement of trial. If the parties fail to do this, they may be

required to give their respective opening statements before voir

dire. Separate statements shall be submitted if agreement is not

reached.

XIII. JURY INSTRUCTIONS, VOIR DIRE, AND VERDICT FORMS

A. The parties are to prepare jury instructions, in the

manner specified in paragraph B below. Counsel shall tailor all

general instructions to the facts and issues in suit.

B. Counsel are directed to confer and to attempt to

agree upon a joint set of jury instructions and verdict forms. 

C. All instructions, both general and specific, shall

be submitted in the exact numerical order counsel desires them

given to the jury and shall be tailored to the facts and issues in

suit.

The joint set of instructions and verdict forms shall be

filed with the court clerk fifteen (15) court days prior to the

date of the trial. As to instructions on which there is dispute,

the parties shall adhere to the following procedure: 1) the party

offering the disputed instruction(s) shall submit the

instruction(s) as its proposed jury instructions, shall submit

authority in support of the proposed instruction(s) and shall

number the disputed instruction(s) in a manner that shows where

each disputed instruction should be placed in the tendered agreed

upon instructions. The contested instruction(s) and supporting

authority shall be filed with the joint set of instructions fifteen

(15) court days prior to the date of the trial; 2) the party

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 14 of 18
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

15

opposed to the contested instruction(s) shall file opposing

authority ten (10) court days prior to the date of the trial.

D. All instructions shall be, to the extent possible,

concise, understandable, and neutral statements of law. They shall

be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 51-163. Ninth Circuit

Pattern Instructions are preferred.

E. It is the parties’ responsibility to ensure that

jury instructions are submitted on all issues preserved for trial

in accordance with the schedule set forth above. Pursuant to Local

Rule 51-163, instructions not presented in accordance with this

Order will be refused unless it is shown either (1) that the

necessity for the request arose in the course of trial; the

instructions could not reasonably have been anticipated prior to

trial from the Final Pretrial Order; and the request for such

additional instructions is presented to the Court as promptly as

possible; or (2) that the refusal to give such instructions would

constitute manifest injustice under Rule 16(e). 

F. Most of the examination of prospective jurors is

conducted by the Court. The parties are directed to meet and

confer and attempt to agree upon a joint set of proposed voir dire

questions. These questions shall include any voir dire questions

supplied by the Court that the parties believe are necessary. The

joint set of voir dire questions shall be filed with the Court

fifteen (15) court days prior to the date of the trial. Parties

may also submit proposed voir dire questions which are disputed. 

Disputed voir dire questions shall be filed with the Court fifteen

(15) court days prior to the date of the trial and shall be

accompanied by an explanation as to the need for the question and

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 15 of 18
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 As explained in United States v. Blouin, 666 F.2d 796,

798 (2d Cir. 1981), “the goal of the ‘struck jury’ system is to

whittle down an initially selected group . . . [to the amount of

jurors] who will serve as the petit jury.” The selected group

consists of the jurors who will hear the case, plus the number of

(continued...)

16

supporting case authority when available. The opposing party shall

respond with reasons for the opposition and any supporting case

authority no later than ten (10) court days prior to the date of

trial. Each side is granted twenty (20) minutes to conduct voir

dire following the Court’s examination of prospective jurors.

G. The parties shall file a joint verdict form

concurrently with proposed jury instructions fifteen (15) court

days prior to the commencement of trial. See L.R. 51-163(e). A

special verdict or interrogatories shall be included for all

factual disputes submitted to the jury that must be resolved before

questions of law can be decided, and for any other issue on which

specific responses are desired. The verdict form shall be prepared

in accordance with Local Rule 51-163(e). At the same time, where

disagreements exist, the parties shall explain the disagreement and

submit points and authorities supporting their respective

positions.

At the time of electronically filing the jury

instructions and verdict forms, counsel shall also submit a copy of

the sanitized joint jury instructions, the sanitized disputed jury

instructions, and the joint verdict forms to the Court by email to

geborders@caed.uscourts.gov in accordance with L.R. 51-163(b)(1).

XIV. USE OF STRUCK JURY SELECTION SYSTEM

Eight (8) jurors will be impaneled. The “struck jury”

system will be used to select the jury.7 At the beginning of the

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 16 of 18
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

(...continued)

jurors required to enable the parties to use the combined number of

peremptory challenges allotted to both sides for striking jurors

from the group. Typically extra jurors are included in the select

group in the event the minimum amount of jurors required for the

“struck system” is reduced “for cause” or some other reason.

17

voir dire process, approximately eighteen prospective jurors,

randomly selected by the Jury Administrator, will be seated for

voir dire. The order of the jurors’ random selection is reflected

by the order in which they will be seated. The first randomly

selected juror will be in jury seat number one, which is at the

extreme right-hand side of the jury box in the top row as the jury

box is viewed from the well of the courtroom. The eighth juror

will be in the eighth seat. The ninth selected juror will occupy

the seat located at the extreme right-hand side of the jury box in

the bottom row. The fifteenth seat will be in the left-hand side

of that row. Three chairs will be placed in front of the jury box. 

The sixteenth juror will occupy the seat on the right and the

eighteenth juror will occupy the seat on the left. The first eight

(8) jurors on a list, which shall be given to counsel, will

constitute the petit jury unless one or more of those eight is

excused for some reason. Assuming that the first and fifth jurors

on the list are excused, the second listed juror becomes the first,

and the other jurors’ numbers are changed accordingly, with the

ninth juror on the list becoming seventh on the list; however, the

jurors continue to be identified by their original numbers.

Following the voir dire questioning, each side will take

turns exercising its three allotted peremptory strikes. If a side

elects to pass rather than exercise a particular peremptory

challenge, that challenge is waived.

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 17 of 18
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 are required to meet and confer about the

length of the trial and to file a document no later than twenty

(20) court days before trial in which the length of trial is

estimated.

18

XV. TRIAL DATE

Trial to a jury will commence on May 15, 2007.8 A trial

day will commence at 9:00 a.m. and will adjourn at approximately

4:30 p.m. Each side has fifteen (15) minutes within which to make

an opening statement to the jury. Counsel are to call Shani

Furstenau, Courtroom Deputy, at (916) 930-4114, one week prior to

trial to ascertain the status of the trial date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00927-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 02/07/07 Page 18 of 18