Tijerina v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 BEATRIZ TIJERINA, individually, Case No.: 22-CV-203 JLS (DTF)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE (1) STRIKING 13 v. SECOND AMENDED JOINT PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER AND (2) CONTINUING FINAL an Alaska Corporation; and DOES 1–50, Defendants. 16 (ECF No. 119) 17 18 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Second Amended Joint Proposed Pretrial 19 Order (“Proposed Order,” ECF No. 119), which they submitted ahead of a final pretrial 20 conference scheduled for June 27, 2024. See ECF No. 111. The Proposed Order was 21 originally due by June 10. See id. On that date, the Parties requested an extension to 22 June 12, ECF No. 115, which the Court granted, ECF No. 116. Nevertheless, the Parties 23 did not file the Proposed Order until June 14.1 Beyond the Parties’ tardiness, however, the 24 Proposed Order is deficient in a more important way—it fails to comply with the Court’s 25 prior instructions. 26 27 28 1 The Parties initially filed a version of the Proposed Order on June 13. See ECF No. 117. However, the 1 During each of the last three hearings held in this matter, see ECF Nos. 71, 93, 111, 2 the Court has instructed the Parties on the proper format for submitting proposed jury 3 instructions. Specifically, the Court directed the Parties to submit a single set of combined 4 proposed instructions, wherein (1) if the Parties agreed on the instruction, they should 5 include a copy of that instruction and note their agreement; and (2) if the Parties disagreed 6 on the instruction, they should provide (a) the relevant pattern instruction, (b) Plaintiff’s 7 proposed instruction (with red-line edits showing deviations from the pattern instruction) 8 and her supporting legal authority, followed by (c) the same from Defendant.2 9 Despite these reminders, the Parties failed to heed the Court’s instructions. Instead, 10 the Parties submitted their joint proposed instructions, Plaintiff’s proposed instructions, 11 and Defendant’s proposed instructions in three separate and lengthy exhibits. See Proposed 12 Order Exs. C–E. Moreover, the Parties failed to “e-mail the proposed instructions in Word 13 or Wordperfect form to Chambers” as required by Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(6)(c)(7). 14 Additionally, the Court has repeatedly informed the Parties that Plaintiff’s exhibits 15 should be numbered 1 to 499, while Defendant’s exhibits should start at 500. But once 16 again, the Parties have labeled Defendant’s exhibits using letters rather than numbers. 17 A district court “has discretion and the inherent power to strike a filing.” United 18 States v. Alvarez, No. 18CR1653-GPC, 2021 WL 2290787, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal. 19 June 4, 2021), aff’d, No. 21-55826, 2024 WL 1693360 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2024); see also 20 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998) 21 (“It is well established that ‘[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their 22 dockets . . . .’” (first alteration in original) (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 23 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998))). In the interest of judicial economy, and because the 24 Parties have not followed directions, the Court will so exercise its discretion here. 25 / / / 26 27 28 2 If the disagreement is over whether the instruction should be given at all, that should be noted in similar 1 Accordingly, the Court sua sponte STRIKES the Proposed Order (ECF No. 119) 2 |jand CONTINUES the June 27 final pretrial conference to 10:00 a.m. PDT on 3 || July 25, 2024, in Courtroom 4D of the Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse. The 4 || Parties SHALL FILE a third amended joint proposed pretrial order in accordance with the 5 || above requirements on or before July 11, 2024. 7 Dated: June 20, 2024 jae L. Lo memeaite- g on. Janis L. Sammartino 9 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28