Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01982/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01982-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yvette Bravo
Plaintiff
United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YVETTE BRAVO,

NO. CIV. S-08-1982 LKK/EFB

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE 

CITY OF NEW YORK; and DOES 1

through 20, inclusive,

ORDER

Defendants.

 /

On April 20, 2010, the court issued a tentative pretrial

order. This order included, inter alia, a list of undisputed facts.

This list was copied from the joint pretrial statement, which was

filed by the parties before the pretrial conference. During the

conference the court explained that the undisputed facts would be

read to the jury.

On April 30, 2010, plaintiff filed objections to the tentative

pretrial statement. These objections included, inter alia, a

general objection to the entire section of undisputed facts.

Case 2:08-cv-01982-LKK -EFB Document 104 Filed 05/12/10 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

2

Specifically, plaintiff argues that he was unaware that the

undisputed facts were to be read to the jury when he submitted them

to the court prior to the pretrial conference. Plaintiff contends

that the undisputed facts are “too detailed to be read to the jury

at the start of trial and are inappropriate for that purpose.”

Plaintiff offers a new statement of undisputed facts to replace the

originally filed facts.

On May 11, 2010, defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s

objection concerning the undisputed facts. Defendant argues that

the facts should not be altered in the final pretrial order. In

particular, defendant states that plaintiff’s proposed undisputed

facts “are not full, complete, and do not communicate the breadth

of [defendant’s] actions . . . .” Moreover, defendant contends that

plaintiff should have raised her objections to the undisputed facts

when they were prepared, prior to the pretrial conference.

The court finds plaintiff’s objection to the undisputed facts

to be improper. Plaintiff cannot propose an alternate statement of

undisputed facts at this stage of the litigation. Rather, plaintiff

must identify her objection to each specific undisputed fact. With

each specific objection, plaintiff must indicate her reason for

objecting. The court notes that being unaware that the undisputed

facts would be read to the jury will not justify amending the facts

listed in the section. Further, plaintiff is cautioned that the

court will determine at the end of trial whether her objections are

frivolous. If the court finds the objections to be frivolous,

plaintiff will be sanctioned.

Case 2:08-cv-01982-LKK -EFB Document 104 Filed 05/12/10 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

3

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders that plaintiff

shall file specific objections to the undisputed facts listed in

the tentative pretrial order within seven (7) days of the issuance

of this order.

The court further orders that defendant may file a response

to plaintiff’s objections within fourteen (14) days of the issuance

of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 11, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01982-LKK -EFB Document 104 Filed 05/12/10 Page 3 of 3