PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:
By letters dated May 5 and May 8, 2000 counsel have raised two issues concerning the Pretrial Order.
The first issue concerns paragraph 5(h) which states, as a stipulated fact, "No finding of facts was presented to Judge Cohalon, nor did he sign or endorse any findings of facts." The correspondence submitted by defendants' counsel clearly demonstrates that defendants did not stipulate to the foregoing "fact" (Exhibit C to the Letter of Timothy Lenane, Esq., dated May 5, 2000). Accordingly, paragraph 5(h) is stricken from the Pretrial Order.
The second issue relates to certain contentions of fact which defendants claim were newly added by plaintiff to the final version of the Pretrial Order. Defendants claim that they are prejudiced by these allegedly new additions because they need to offer additional exhibits to rebut them. Although the documentary evidence again supports defendants' argument, plaintiff's counsel's letter of May 8, 2000, states that plaintiffs consent to defendants' adding exhibits to the Pretrial Order to meet plaintiffs' new contentions. Accordingly, it appears that this issue is moot.
No later than November 13, 2000, the parties shall submit an amended Pretrial Order to Judge Kram. The Amended Pretrial Order shall delete the paragraph currently designated as 5(h) and shall contain an updated list of the exhibits defendants will offer at trial.
SO ORDERED