McCoy v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

S.D. California

McCoy v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

DecidedJuly 28, 2025

Docket3:22-cv-02075

StatusUnknown

This text of McCoy v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (McCoy v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCoy v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARBARA MCCOY, Case No.: 22-CV-2075 JLS (SBC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE STRIKING 13 v. THE PARTIES’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND DIRECTING 14 DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.; PARTIES TO RE-FILE DEPUY PRODUCTS, INC.; 15 DEPUY SYNTHES, INC.; (ECF No. 197) 16 JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON

& JOHNSON SERVICES, INC.; and 17 JOHNSON & JOHNSON 18 INTERNATIONAL, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Presently before the Court are the Parties’ Jointly Proposed Jury Instructions with 22 Objections. See ECF No. 197. However, the Parties failed to provide and/or cite to the 23 most recent version of both the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions and the Judicial 24 Council of California Civil Jury Instructions in their proposed instructions, as required by 25 Local Rule 51.1(d). The Court also has not received an e-mailed Word copy of the 26 proposed instructions as required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(6)(c)(7). 27 A district court “has discretion and the inherent power to strike a filing.” United 28 States v. Alvarez, No. 18CR1653-GPC, 2021 WL 2290787, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 1 || 2021), aff'd, No. 21-55826, 2024 WL 1693360 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2024); see also Atchison, 2 || Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998) (“It is 3 || well established that ‘[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their dockets... □□□ 4 || (first alteration in original) (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th 5 || Cir. 1998))). In the interest of judicial economy, and because the Parties have not followed 6 Local Rules, the Court will so exercise its discretion here. 7 Accordingly, the Court sua sponte STRIKES the Jointly Proposed Jury Instructions 8 || with Objections (ECF No. 197). The Parties SHALL FILE amended joint proposed jury 9 ||instructions and objections in accordance with the above requirements on or before 10 |} August 1, 2025. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: July 28, 2025 jae L. Lo memeaite- 13 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARBARA MCCOY, Case No.: 22-CV-2075 JLS (SBC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE STRIKING 13 v. THE PARTIES’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND DIRECTING 14 DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.; PARTIES TO RE-FILE DEPUY PRODUCTS, INC.; 15 DEPUY SYNTHES, INC.; (ECF No. 197) 16 JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON

& JOHNSON SERVICES, INC.; and 17 JOHNSON & JOHNSON 18 INTERNATIONAL, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Presently before the Court are the Parties’ Jointly Proposed Jury Instructions with 22 Objections. See ECF No. 197. However, the Parties failed to provide and/or cite to the 23 most recent version of both the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions and the Judicial 24 Council of California Civil Jury Instructions in their proposed instructions, as required by 25 Local Rule 51.1(d). The Court also has not received an e-mailed Word copy of the 26 proposed instructions as required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(6)(c)(7). 27 A district court “has discretion and the inherent power to strike a filing.” United 28 States v. Alvarez, No. 18CR1653-GPC, 2021 WL 2290787, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 1 || 2021), aff'd, No. 21-55826, 2024 WL 1693360 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2024); see also Atchison, 2 || Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998) (“It is 3 || well established that ‘[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their dockets... □□□ 4 || (first alteration in original) (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th 5 || Cir. 1998))). In the interest of judicial economy, and because the Parties have not followed 6 Local Rules, the Court will so exercise its discretion here. 7 Accordingly, the Court sua sponte STRIKES the Jointly Proposed Jury Instructions 8 || with Objections (ECF No. 197). The Parties SHALL FILE amended joint proposed jury 9 ||instructions and objections in accordance with the above requirements on or before 10 |} August 1, 2025. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: July 28, 2025 jae L. Lo memeaite- 13 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McCoy v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccoy-v-depuy-orthopaedics-inc-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack