U.S. v. SHORDJA, 13-20387. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20130912969
Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2013
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE ROBERT H. CLELAND, District Judge. Pending before the court is Defendant's Motion in Limine (Dkt. #14) seeking the restriction of privileged information proffered through the possible testimony of one or more attorneys. Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules require that a movant in any motion to seek concurrence in motions and, if concurrence is not obtained, to report that a conference between attorneys was held but concurrence was no
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE ROBERT H. CLELAND, District Judge. Pending before the court is Defendant's Motion in Limine (Dkt. #14) seeking the restriction of privileged information proffered through the possible testimony of one or more attorneys. Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules require that a movant in any motion to seek concurrence in motions and, if concurrence is not obtained, to report that a conference between attorneys was held but concurrence was not..
More
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
ROBERT H. CLELAND, District Judge.
Pending before the court is Defendant's Motion in Limine (Dkt. #14) seeking the restriction of privileged information proffered through the possible testimony of one or more attorneys. Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules require that a movant in any motion to seek concurrence in motions and, if concurrence is not obtained, to report that a conference between attorneys was held but concurrence was not obtained, or that despite reasonable efforts the movant was unable to conduct such a conference. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a). No exception is made for criminal cases. E.D. Mich. LR 1.1(c) ("These rules apply in civil and criminal actions.").
The motion neither mentions nor explains any effort to seek concurrence and to agree upon a suitable result without involving the court. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion (Dkt. #14) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
