United States District Court, D. Nebraska
R. ZWART, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
time of the pretrial conference, the parties submitted an
exhibit list which was improperly incorporated into the body
of the final pretrial conference order, (see NECivR
16.2(a)(1)), with exhibit numbering that did not comply with
the court's local rules. See NECivR 39.3(d). I offered to
fix those issues for counsel, and to file the exhibit list
after the conference. Counsel expressed appreciation for this
27, 2018, the day after the pretrial conference held on June
26, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel emailed me, with defense
counsel copied, and asked me add two exhibits to the trial
exhibit list. Today, I asked if either Defendant or Plaintiff
had anything further that needed to be added to the exhibit
list, including objections, before the final exhibit list was
filed. Defense counsel asked that I note Defendant's
evidence rule objections, along with a Rule 26(a)(3)
objection to Plaintiff's two additional exhibits because
they were never previously disclosed as trial exhibits.
Defendant further asked the court to add the CV of
Bitters' expert witness to the exhibit list. I then
entered an order requiring Plaintiff's counsel to file
documentation showing Plaintiff's two additional exhibits
were previously and timely disclosed as trial exhibits, and
to state if and what objections it wanted to note on the
exhibit list regarding the CV of Defendant's expert.
email sent to the undersigned magistrate judge and all
counsel, Plaintiff's counsel objected to allowing
additional exhibits to be added to the exhibit list by email
request, complaining that this process showed favoritism to
the defendant. Plaintiff's counsel further states he does
not have time to file another brief, presumably on the
exhibit disclosure issue. See attached.
the court's local rules, all exhibits must be listed in
the exhibit list prior to the pretrial conference. NECivR
16.2(a)(1). As such, since objections have been raised by
both sides, and since my efforts to assist have been
misconstrued by Plaintiff's counsel, I will strictly
enforce the local rules and will not honor either
parties' post-pretrial conference request to add exhibits
to the trial exhibit list.
Magistrate Judge Zwart:
Court does not allow Plaintiff to add two exhibits then
Plaintiff would object to the unequal treatment of the Court
in allowing Defendant to add an exhibit where Plaintiff has
not been allowed to do so.
also objects that the Court is receiving email motions from
Defense whereas, in the past, the Court emailed Plaintiff
that it did not wish to hear issues by email when they were
raised by Plaintiff.
also objects that the Court has put the burden of proof on
Plaintiff (Dkt. #230) regarding two exhibits to add whereas
Defendant has not been similarly required to make a filing to
support its introduction of an exhibit that was not in the
exhibit list submitted in the Pretrial Conference Order.
Plaintiff's understanding that one of the exhibits
(pictures of Ms. Petersen) was discussed at the pretrial
conference on June 26 and accepted but now the issues is
being revisited. Plaintiff objects to this and to the
Court's order of today requiring a filing to be made
before the close of business on this issue, insufficient time
when the Court has already overburdened Plaintiff with filing
three other briefs by today.
Robert J. Gaudet, Jr. Plaintiff's co-counsel
RE: issues list I will be entering an order requiring
Plaintiff to show that the two additional exhibits were
disclosed at least 30 days before trial as required under
meantime, I have added the defense expert's CV to the
exhibit list. Does Plaintiff have any objection I ...