Filed: Apr. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2012
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's amended motion in limine [Docket No. 203]. In its motion, plaintiff requests that the Court exclude "four orders from other litigation" identified by defendants as potential trial exhibits, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 103, 104, 402, 403, 404(b), 801, and 802. See Docket No. 203 at 1-2. Plaintiff initially made that request in a motion in limine [Docket No. 189] filed on April 13, 2012. The Court
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's amended motion in limine [Docket No. 203]. In its motion, plaintiff requests that the Court exclude "four orders from other litigation" identified by defendants as potential trial exhibits, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 103, 104, 402, 403, 404(b), 801, and 802. See Docket No. 203 at 1-2. Plaintiff initially made that request in a motion in limine [Docket No. 189] filed on April 13, 2012. The Court s..
More
ORDER
PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's amended motion in limine [Docket No. 203]. In its motion, plaintiff requests that the Court exclude "four orders from other litigation" identified by defendants as potential trial exhibits, citing Federal Rules of Evidence 103, 104, 402, 403, 404(b), 801, and 802. See Docket No. 203 at 1-2. Plaintiff initially made that request in a motion in limine [Docket No. 189] filed on April 13, 2012. The Court struck that motion on April 16, 2012 [Docket No. 191] for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A and § III.A of my Practice Standards. See Practice Standards (Civil cases), Judge Philip A. Brimmer § III.A. The present motion still violates § III.A of my Practice Standards.
Plaintiff contends that the "four orders from other litigation" have been identified by defendants as exhibits supporting their "unclean hands" defense to plaintiff's Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA") claim. In an April 26, 2012 order [Docket No. 33], the Court dismissed plaintiff's CCPA claim, which mooted defendants' "unclean hands" defense. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff's amended motion in limine [Docket No. 203] is DENIED as moot.
