McCoy v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

Opinion

BARBARA MCCOY, Case No.: 22-CV-2075 JLS (SBC)

Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE STRIKING v. THE PARTIES’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND DIRECTING DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.; PARTIES TO RE-FILE DEPUY PRODUCTS, INC.; DEPUY SYNTHES, INC.; (ECF No. 197) JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON

& JOHNSON SERVICES, INC.; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON Defendants. Presently before the Court are the Parties’ Jointly Proposed Jury Instructions with Objections. See ECF No. 197. However, the Parties failed to provide and/or cite to the most recent version of both the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions and the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions in their proposed instructions, as required by Local Rule 51.1(d). The Court also has not received an e-mailed Word copy of the proposed instructions as required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(6)(c)(7). A district court “has discretion and the inherent power to strike a filing.” United States v. Alvarez, No. 18CR1653-GPC, 2021 WL 2290787, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2021), aff'd, No. 21-55826, 2024 WL 1693360 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2024); see also Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998) (“It is well established that ‘[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their dockets... □□□ (first alteration in original) (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998))). In the interest of judicial economy, and because the Parties have not followed Local Rules, the Court will so exercise its discretion here. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte STRIKES the Jointly Proposed Jury Instructions with Objections (ECF No. 197). The Parties SHALL FILE amended joint proposed jury instructions and objections in accordance with the above requirements on or before } August 1, 2025. Dated: July 28, 2025 jae L. Lo memeaite- on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge