ORDER VACATING MOTION IN LIMINE HEARING SET FOR MARCH 24, 2014

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

On February 25, 2014, the parties submitted a joint Pre-Trial Conference Statement that set out several disputed evidentiary issues between Plaintiff and Defendants. (Doc. 61, 5:7-8:11.) Each side presented their evidentiary issues separately. In the statement, Plaintiff indicated he believed "the disputes should be resolved in the trial brief." (Doc. 61, 5:26.)

A Pretrial Conference was held on March 4, 2014, before U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, and Plaintiff failed to appear.1 (Doc. 64.) With Defendants' consent, the Court ruled on the record at the Conference as to the evidentiary issues presented by Defendants in the joint Pretrial Conference Statement. (Doc. 64.) Due to Plaintiff's absence at the Pretrial Conference, the Court did not consider the evidentiary issues Plaintiff presented in the joint Pretrial Conference Statement.

On the same day, the Court issued a Pretrial Order indicating that any motions in limine were to be filed no later than March 10, 2014, and any opposition to motions in limine were to be filed no later than March 17, 2014. (Doc. 65.) The deadline to file motions in limine was later extended to March 11, 2014.

No motions in limine were filed by the March 11, 2014, deadline. On March 11, 2014, Defendants filed a statement indicating their motions in limine had been ruled upon at the Pretrial Conference, and thus they had no further motions in limine to present to the Court.

On March 17, 2014, Defendants filed an additional statement indicating that Plaintiff had failed to file any motions in limine, and the evidentiary disputes presented to the Court in the parties' joint Pretrial Conference Statement were not motions in limine that the Court must now rule upon. Defendants note their disputed evidentiary issues were ruled upon by their consent at the Pretrial Conference, but Plaintiff was absent from the conference and his evidentiary issues were not addressed. Further, Plaintiff failed to meet and confer regarding any of his evidentiary issues, and Plaintiff failed to submit any motions in limine by the deadline. Thus, Defendants argue the evidentiary issues raised by Plaintiff in the joint Pretrial Statement should not be construed as motions in limine.

Having reviewed the docket and the transcript of the Pre-Trial Conference held on March 4, 2014, the Court agrees that Plaintiff failed to properly file motions in limine within the deadline set by Judge O'Neill. As such, there are no motions in limine currently pending before the Court on which it can rule. Judge O'Neill ruled on Defendants' evidentiary issues at the Pre-Trial Conference, and those rulings stand.2 The parties are not precluded from raising appropriate evidentiary objections during the course of trial.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion in limine hearing set for March 24, 2014, is VACATED, and the parties do not need to appear; and

2. All other deadlines in the Pretrial Order remain as set by Judge O'Neill.

IT IS SO ORDERED.