Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Federal Judiciary

: Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

"Petty Squabbles and Disputes" in Lufkin

By Michael Smith

ADVERTISEMENTS

Candela v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., 9:06cv277 (E.D. Tex. 2008)
Judge: Ron Clark
Holding: Rebuttal Report & Trial Exhibit & Witness List Motions DISMISSED
I try and I try not to post on unpublished orders from the Eastern District judges except on rare occasions just due to the sheer volume, since I do practice law for a living, but some are just so good I have share them.
In the Candela case, several trial management issues remained open on the eve of trial, namely whether the parties should be permitted to serve another round of rebuttal reports barely three weeks before trial and whether updated damages information should be added to the parties? trial exhibit lists, which were due on September 5, 2008.
In what may (or may not) be a proud moment for the defendant, Judge Clark noted that "[w]hile impressed by Palomar?s ability to create a six-line, forty-nine word document title (Candela disappoints with only a three-line, twenty-three word title), the court will refer to these three motions by document numbers in an effort to conserve time and disk space."
It's pretty obvious that the Court was not happy with the state of discovery disputes in this case. It wrote:

"During the pendency of this case, the court has frequently been called upon to officiate petty squabbles and disputes between the parties. Since November 2007, the court has disposed of six motions to compel (three of which ?required? expedited review); two motions to extend deadlines; one motion for leave to take additional discovery; and one motion to strike portions of a summary judgment motion. These ten motions are merely those which were opposed and have already been ruled on; this number does not include several unopposed motions to extend case deadlines; three motions for summary judgment; one opposed letter brief request to file additional motions for summary judgment; the two instant motions; the parties? myriad motions in limine; and the numerous objections to exhibits and deposition designations which will, no doubt, be forthcoming as trial approaches.

(Docket numbers omitted). So what was the result?

"Rather than waste time writing a lengthy order on the eve of trial, the court will dismiss the motions ... and instead point the parties toward the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Texas, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and this court?s Scheduling Order which, although having been amended numerous times at the request of the parties, has been in effect since March 23, 2007. Evidence will be admitted if it has been timely disclosed or produced, and a proper predicate for admissibility is laid. Both sides are cautioned against lodging objections to clearly admissible evidence included in exhibit lists."

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on September 10, 2008 (boomark / email).