Bell v. Coleman, 4:17-CV-47-SA-JMV. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20180626c25
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2018
Summary: ORDER SHARION AYCOCK , District Judge . A week after the deadline for filing motions in limine passed, the Defendants filed a Motion [89] requesting an extension of the deadline for all Parties. The instant Motion fails to provide any explanation as to why the Parties failed to meet the deadline. The instant Motion also fails to provide any argument or reasons as to why the deadline should be extended and fails to comply with Local Uniform Civil Rule 7(b). For all of these reasons, the Defe
Summary: ORDER SHARION AYCOCK , District Judge . A week after the deadline for filing motions in limine passed, the Defendants filed a Motion [89] requesting an extension of the deadline for all Parties. The instant Motion fails to provide any explanation as to why the Parties failed to meet the deadline. The instant Motion also fails to provide any argument or reasons as to why the deadline should be extended and fails to comply with Local Uniform Civil Rule 7(b). For all of these reasons, the Defen..
More
ORDER
SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge.
A week after the deadline for filing motions in limine passed, the Defendants filed a Motion [89] requesting an extension of the deadline for all Parties. The instant Motion fails to provide any explanation as to why the Parties failed to meet the deadline. The instant Motion also fails to provide any argument or reasons as to why the deadline should be extended and fails to comply with Local Uniform Civil Rule 7(b). For all of these reasons, the Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time [89] is denied.
Before the Court had an opportunity to rule on the time extension, the Defendants filed a Motion in Limine [91] out of time and without leave from the Court. Because this Motion is clearly untimely, the Court strikes the Motion and will not consider it.
The Defendants Motion for Extension of Time [89] is DENIED.
The Defendants' Motion in Limine [91] is STRICKEN.
It is SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
