DAVIS v. KISSINGER, 2:04-CV-0878-TLN-DAD. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20141015794
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2014
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. The Court is in receipt of Defendants' Objection to Plaintiff's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum re: Kerry Thrower (ECF No. 291) and Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Application to Submit Amended Joint Pretrial Conference Statement (ECF No. 292). Both documents are improperly filed motions in limine disputing the admissibility of a specific witness and a specific piece of evidence. The Court will not rule on admissibility in a pi
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. The Court is in receipt of Defendants' Objection to Plaintiff's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum re: Kerry Thrower (ECF No. 291) and Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Application to Submit Amended Joint Pretrial Conference Statement (ECF No. 292). Both documents are improperly filed motions in limine disputing the admissibility of a specific witness and a specific piece of evidence. The Court will not rule on admissibility in a pie..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
The Court is in receipt of Defendants' Objection to Plaintiff's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum re: Kerry Thrower (ECF No. 291) and Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Application to Submit Amended Joint Pretrial Conference Statement (ECF No. 292). Both documents are improperly filed motions in limine disputing the admissibility of a specific witness and a specific piece of evidence. The Court will not rule on admissibility in a piecemeal fashion. The parties are instructed to resubmit these requests as properly titled motions in limine in accordance with the schedule stated in the Final Pretrial Conference on September 11, 2014, and reiterated in the Court's Final Pretrial Order.1 (ECF No. 295 at 13.) Further failure to comply with the Court's orders in this regard may constitute a violation of the standards of professional conduct pursuant to Local Rule 180(e) and thus make the parties subject to sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court will extend the submission deadline for motions in limine on only these two issues to October 9, 2014. All deadlines for oppositions and replies remain the same.
Source: Leagle
