Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Sheikh

District Court, N.D. California·Decided October 21, 2020·No. 4:18-cv-07602·Unknown

Opinion

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 4:18-cv-07602-YGR

Plaintiffs, PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1 RE: PRETRIAL vs. CONFERENCE

Defendants.

INTERNATIONAL, INC., Third- Party Plaintiff, vs. NABIA UDDIN, Third-Party Defendant.

Having considered the filings to date and the arguments and other submissions at the Pretrial Conference, held on October 16, 2020, for good cause shown the Court enters the following orders: 1. Trial Date and Schedule: The trial of this matter trails a criminal jury trial which takes precedence. The trial is CONTINUED to November 9, 2020. Parties will be advised by no later than noon on November 6, 2020 whether the case will proceed as scheduled or be continued to January 7, 2021. If the Court learns on November 3, 2020 that a jury will not be summoned for public safety reasons due to the impact of COVID-19, or that logistically, it will not be able to summon a jury, the Court will advise the parties and immediately reset the trial for January 7, 2021. Jury Selection shall begin at beginning at 9:00 a.m. All remaining trial days shall begin at 8:30 a.m. Counsel shall arrive in court early enough to proceed promptly at 8:00 a.m. Trial schedule will be Monday through Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. with two fifteen-minute breaks. If in January, the parties are advised that Thursday January 14, 2022 will be dark. and determined by the Court. Sidebars are not permitted. Counsel should be prepared to anticipate issues so that they may be addressed outside of normal trial hours. In this regard, Counsel should also be prepared to reconvene with the Court after the Court’s standing calendars which normally begin at 2:00 p.m. 2. Stipulations: The parties’ stipulations at Docket No. 235 is GRANTED. 3. Standard Motions in Limine: The Court HEREBY ORDERS that: (a) witnesses shall be excluded until testimony is completed; (b) there shall be no reference to or evidence presented of settlement discussions, mediation, or insurance; and (c) there shall be no reference to or evidence presented of wealth or lack thereof of any party except in the punitive damage phase of a case, to the extent it exists. A motion in limine refers “to any motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40, n. 2 (1984). The Court’s rulings on the motions in limine will be issued by separate orders. The parties shall lodge a proposed form of order with respect to the rulings on the motions in limine discussed during the trial conference. Parties are ORDERED to admonish witnesses of the Court’s rulings. Failure to comply with a ruling by the Court may result in sanctions, including without limitation the striking of the witness’s entire testimony. 4. Bifurcation: The parties shall meet and confer on whether bifurcation of the counterclaim is appropriate and shall provide the Court with their respective views by October 23, 2020. 5. Witnesses: The parties are limited to calling the witnesses submitted on the list filed for the Pretrial Conference. Upon a showing of good cause, including for rebuttal or impeachment purposes, additional witnesses will only be allowed by Court order. By Noon on Monday, October 26, 2020, the parties shall deliver via email a single joint list of all witnesses, attorneys, and others involved in the trial, in alphabetical order to be shown to prospective jurors during voir dire. The list shall be legible and formatted to fit on one page. Exhibit List. No witness may be shown any document or other object until it has been marked for identification using an exhibit number. The parties shall file updated Exhibit Lists identifying those for which a stipulation of admissibility exists with an “S” in the appropriate box. The undated list shall be filed by October 23, 2020. The jury may not be shown any exhibits until admitted into evidence or stipulated by the parties as to admissibility without the express permission of the Court. To assist with COVID-19 protocols, each witness shall be provided with a witness binders which shall include any exhibit bearing on the examination. Parties shall have a binder for the court and the opposing party, unless the parties agree to a different protocol. 7. Deposition Designations and Objections: In accordance with the Court’s Standing Order Re: Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases, ¶ 3.e., the parties shall resubmit any objections with the corresponding form of order. 8. Equipment: Projectors, screens and similar equipment must be tested in the courtroom prior to the day when it will be used. Arrangements may be made with the Courtroom Deputy, Frances Stone, at (510) 637-3540, as to appropriate time for doing so. Marshals require court order to allow equipment; parties will need to file request and proposed order. Parties may use encrypted digital wireless system that includes a receiver and transmitter with XLR connector. The parties shall review the Court’s policy regarding the jury’s use of a computer during deliberations at http://cand.uscourts.gov/jurypc. 9. Jurors and Peremptory Challenges: The Court will seat a total of eight (8) jurors and no alternates. The Court sets the number of peremptory challenges at three (3) per side, i.e. 3 for plaintiffs; 3 for defendants/counter-claimants; 3 for counterclaim defendant. Batson motions must be made in a timely fashion. Argument on the same shall be made outside the presence of the jury panel. 10. Introductory Jury Instructions: In general, the Court will give Model Instructions 1.3, 1.5- 1.21, 2.2, 2.4, 2.11-2.16, and 3.1–3.5 from the Manual of Model Civil Jury Instructions for the Ninth Circuit (2017 Edition). exhibits to be used in opening statements. Unless otherwise agreed, the exchange must occur no later than three business days before trial. Any objections not resolved must be filed in writing by the next business day. The parties are reminded that the purpose of an Opening Statement is not to argue the facts but to provide the jurors with an outline of what each side expects the evidence will show. 12. Expert Disclosures/Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 Offers: To the extent not already provided, counsel shall lodge with the Court on the first day of trial a copy of all expert disclosures, including any supplements, as well as all offers of judgment made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. 13. Doe Defendants: All Doe Defendants will be deemed dismissed once the jury, or first witness, is sworn, whichever occurs first. 14. Depositions to be Used at Trial: Any party intending to use a deposition transcript at trial for any purpose shall lodge the signed original (or a certified/stipulated copy if, for any reason, the original is not available) for use by the Court and shall have extra copies available for use by him/herself and the witness. All other parties are expected to have their own copies available. The parties shall each prepare and provide an index of the lodged transcripts and shall review the same with the courtroom deputy upon lodging the transcripts. The index shall provide a space for the party and the courtroom deputy to confirm delivery of and receipt of each transcript. Delivery of the transcripts shall occur no later than November 1, 2018. Before each trial day, counsel shall confer with the courtroom deputy and identify which of the transcripts may be used that day. 15. Video Depositions at Trial: A video deposition may only be shown after the designations, counter-designation and objections are resolved. A transcript shall be provided of the portions played to the jury. The court reporter shall be relieved of her duties to transcribe that porti

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Sheikh, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Sheikh (Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Sheikh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Luce v. United States
469 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court, 1999)