Habr v. RXMAPPER, LLC

Background

The court issued this pretrial order because trial was scheduled to begin on March 3, 2025. The order states that additional orders would be issued at the pretrial conference.

Trial schedule and presentation of evidence

The trial was confirmed for Courtroom 1 of the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Oakland, California, beginning with jury selection. Each party was allotted eight hours to present its case, including opening and closing statements. Trial was scheduled for Monday through Thursday, generally from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with specified breaks and approximately six hours and ten minutes of daily trial time. The order also addressed possible additional proceedings outside the jury’s presence and stated that sidebars were not permitted.

The parties were directed to prepare jury instructions, submit a proposed general verdict form, and follow limits on witnesses and exhibits. Additional witnesses would require a court order based on good cause, including rebuttal or impeachment. Exhibits had to be marked for identification before being shown to a witness, and the jury could not see exhibits until they were admitted, stipulated to be admissible, or allowed by the court. The parties were also directed to address witness binders, stipulations concerning witnesses, expert disclosures, offers of judgment, trial equipment, and transcript arrangements.

Jury and other trial procedures

The court stated that it would seat eight jurors and no alternates, with three peremptory challenges for each side. Challenges alleging improper use of those strikes had to be made promptly. The court would not conduct attorney-led questioning of the jury panel, although requested questions had generally been included in the jury questionnaire. Live remote testimony was described as generally not allowed in federal court.

Rulings

The court denied the motion to bifurcate at Docket No. 99. It explained that the trial was short, that dividing it into phases would waste judicial resources, and that the issue should have been raised in a summary-judgment motion rather than at that stage. The court granted the stipulations at Docket No. 104 except as to the testimony of the expert witnesses. The order terminated Docket Nos. 99 and 104.

The order warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions appropriate to the seriousness of the violation, including monetary fines or terminating sanctions.