D.R. v. Santos Bakery, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-03628
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In D.R. v. Santos Bakery, Judge Parker set pretrial deadlines and required the parties to address damages arguments, evidence, jury procedures, and the verdict form.
The plaintiffs, defendants, their counsel, and the conduct of the trial were affected by the filing deadlines and required joint disclosures.
What happened
In D.R. v. Santos Bakery, Inc., the court issued a pretrial order after a May 15, 2023 conference. The order concerned how the upcoming trial would proceed, including arguments about pain-and-suffering damages, evidence, jury questions, and the verdict form.
The court said it generally prevents lawyers from suggesting a specific dollar amount for pain and suffering. Plaintiffs could ask for permission to do so by May 19, defendants could respond by May 26, no reply was allowed, and each filing was limited to eight double-spaced pages. The parties also had to file a joint letter about potential liability stipulations, evidence redactions and school records, proposed jury questions, juror questions to witnesses, and the verdict form.
Judge Katharine H. Parker did not decide the parties’ underlying claims in this order. She set deadlines and required the parties to identify or resolve remaining pretrial issues.
The detailed version
- D.R. v. Santos Bakery, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03628
- Katharine Parker
- May 16, 2023
Background
The order followed a May 15, 2023 pretrial conference in the case brought by D.R., through her mother and natural guardian, Towana Rodriguez, and by Rodriguez individually, against Santos Bakery, Inc. and Wilson Villatenmaza. The order addressed trial procedures and unresolved pretrial matters; it did not rule on the underlying claims.
Pain-and-Suffering Damages
The court stated that, in its discretion, it generally prevents counsel from offering the jury a specific dollar amount for pain and suffering. Plaintiffs’ motion for permission to offer a specific amount had to be filed by Friday, May 19, 2023. Defendants’ opposition was due Friday, May 26, 2023. No reply was permitted, and each brief was limited to eight double-spaced pages.
Required Joint Letter
By Friday, May 26, 2023, the parties had to file a joint letter addressing:
- Whether they agreed to stipulate that the bakery owner would be legally responsible for any damages through the owner’s relationship with the bakery, and proposed language for the court’s jury instructions concerning the owner’s liability. - Whether they agreed on redactions to the police report and medical records. If not, they had to identify the remaining disputes and submit copies of the exhibits with disputed language highlighted. - Whether disputes remained about admitting D.R.’s school records, including the information disputed and each side’s position on admissibility. - Whether either party objected to the court’s proposed questions for prospective jurors, except for question 17, which had already been discussed and was being revised to apply to all parties, both corporate and individual. - Whether either party objected to allowing jurors to ask witnesses questions as described at the conference. - Whether the parties agreed on a verdict form. If they agreed, they had to submit a joint proposed form; otherwise, they had to describe their disagreements in the letter.
Disposition
The court entered the pretrial directives described above. The order did not grant or deny a dispositive motion, determine liability, or decide damages. It is therefore a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.