ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER [99] AND RESCINDING REFERRAL OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIDAVITS [113, 116]1

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, District Judge.

The Court held oral argument on the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on January 16, 2018. See Dkt. No. 104. The Defendant moved to strike certain affidavits filed in support of the Plaintiffs' Response to the Defendant's summary judgment motion. See Dkt. No. 113. The Court referred the Defendant's motion to strike to Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub, but now rescinds this referral. See Dkt. No. 116.

Also on January 16, 2018, the Court held a status conference in this matter. See Dkt. No. 121. As decided in the conference, the Court will grant the parties additional time to prepare for trial and will allow the parties to file written submissions for trial in lieu of presenting witnesses. The Court will, however, require that the parties make opening statements and present closing arguments. The parties will make opening statements prior to the Plaintiffs' first Trial Submission and will present closing arguments after the Plaintiffs file the Reply in Support of their Trial Submission. In addition, if the parties are unable to resolve any objections to evidence by the time they file the Final Joint Pretrial Order, the Court will hold oral argument on these objections.

The parties should include in the Final Joint Pretrial Order proposed dates for opening statements, closing arguments, and oral argument on any objections to evidence, or should be prepared to discuss potential dates at the Final Pretrial Conference.

Based on the above, the Court will amend the Scheduling Order [99] as follows:

Each party's first trial submission may not exceed fifteen (15) pages, and the Plaintiffs' Reply Trial Submission may not exceed five (5) pages.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.