Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GALLEMORE-WRIGHT v. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY

United States District Court, S.D. New York


May 14, 2004.

CHRISTINE GALLEMORE-WRIGHT, Plaintiff, -against- THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge

ORDER

Counsel have submitted a proposed joint pretrial order which raises a number of issues:

1. Defendant contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction because plaintiffs claims are preempted by the Railway Labor Act and relevant sections of the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Defendant shall submit a memorandum of law, on or before May 28, 2004, setting forth the legal basis for that contention. Plaintiff may submit an answering memorandum no later than June 4, 2004.

  2. The proposed joint pretrial order fails to conform to the Court's requirements in the following respects:

(a) The purported statement of the issues to be tried is entirely unilluminating and unacceptable. The parties are to agree as to the specific factual issues that are to be tried.
(b) The list of proposed plaintiffs exhibits is deficient. Plaintiff is to premark and list each individual document or thing that she proposes to offer in evidence. Such generic descriptions as "[r]ecords of Plaintiff's Union," "Records of EEOC . . . regarding all charges filed by plaintiff against the LLRR," "[p]laintiff's complete disciplinary records . . . inclusive of and transcripts of proceedings conducted by defendant and all exhibits attached thereto," and "[o]ffice notes, reports, records & bills of: Dr. Norman Tieman[,] Richard W. Johnson, MD[, and] Rasool Shama, MD" are not acceptable. Further, plaintiffs purported reservation of the right to supplement the list is of no effect.
(c) Plaintiffs proposed witness list includes such generic categories as "Treasury Department Personnel," "unknown representatives of plaintiffs union," and "foundation witnesses as necessary." This is not acceptable.
(d) The parties have made no reasonable effort to identify in the proposed pretrial order even identified witnesses who actually will, or are likely to be, called. Plaintiff has indicated that she may call 70 identified witnesses — in addition to the generic categories indicated above — and that she estimates that she will put in her case in 2 ½ days. Both statements cannot be true. The same can be said of defendant, although defendant has listed only 19 witnesses.
  The parties shall submit a revised proposed joint pretrial order no later than May 28, 2004 which shall comply in all respects with the Court's requirements, including those set forth in this order. In furtherance of that objective, plaintiff shall provide defendant with a draft thereof no later than May 21, 2004.

  Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

  SO ORDERED.

  It is ORDERED that counsel to whom this Order is sent is responsible for faxing a copy to all counsel and retaining verification of such in the case file. Do not fax such verification to Chambers.

20040514

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.