Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
GALLEMORE-WRIGHT v. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY
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
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
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
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.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For