ORDER

DANA L. CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.

Before the Court are Defendant George Leslie Manlove's ("Manlove") objections regarding anticipated evidence and expert testimony. (Doc. 197.) Defendant's counsel argues, in part, that unless the Court grants these objections, and does so soon, the "Defense Team" will not have sufficient time to prepare for trial, and will, once again, be required to seek a continuance.1 Putting aside the novelty and coercive nature of this argument, the Court notes the obvious-trial has not yet commenced, not a single witness has been sworn and called to testify, and not a single document has been offered into evidence. Therefore, Manlove's objections are premature. The Court will await the presentation of evidence, and will rule when objections are made at trial. Perhaps, some of the feared evidence will never be offered.

More specifically, on the subject of experts, the Court requests that counsel, no later than the lunch break on the day before it is anticipated that an expert will be called to testify, advise the Court and opposing counsel of the expert or experts that the party intends to call the following day so that any issues regarding the disclosure or anticipated testimony of that expert can be addressed outside the presence of the jury.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Manlove's Objection to Certain Witnesses Being Called and to the Scope of the Testimony of Certain Experts Recently Identified by the Prosecution (Doc. 197) is DENIED as premature.