Loft v. Stationary Engineers

Filing 77

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 05/12/2015. (lhklc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

CHARLES LOFT,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18

Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN
LIMINE NO. 2

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 68
STATIONARY ENGINEERS, LOCAL 39
PTF, LLC,
Defendant.
A final pretrial conference is scheduled in this case for May 21, 2015. ECF No. 24.

19

Pursuant to Guidelines for Final Pretrial Conference in Jury Trials Before District Judge Lucy H.

20

Koh, “the parties shall file and serve any motions in limine at least 14 days before the final Pretrial

21

Conference, and any opposition thereto at least 10 days before the final Pretrial Conference.”

22

Accordingly, motions in limine in this case were due to be filed and served on May 7, 2015, and

23

oppositions on May 11, 2015.

24

On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel purported to file “in limine motion number two.” See

25

ECF No. 68-1 (“Declaration of Robert David Baker in Support of in limine Motion Number

26

Two.”). However, Plaintiff’s counsel did not file a second motion in limine by May 7, 2015, and

27

appears to have filed two copies of Exhibit A to Mr. Baker’s declaration, rather than one copy of

28

1
Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

1

the motion in limine and one copy of Exhibit A. Compare ECF No. 68 with ECF No. 68-2. Nor

2

did Plaintiff’s counsel serve Plaintiff’s second motion in limine on Defendant by May 7, 2015,

3

based on Defendant’s statement in opposition that Defendant “is unaware of the basis for [the]

4

motion and/or the exclusion of unknown documents or evidence.” See ECF No. 71. Because this

5

is an issue the parties should have resolved amongst themselves as a matter of professional

6

courtesy, and in fairness to the Plaintiff, the Court will permit Plaintiff’s counsel a limited window

7

within which to re-file Plaintiff’s motion in limine number two.

8
9

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel has until 10:00 am tomorrow, May 13, 2015, to re-file
Plaintiff’s second motion in limine if Plaintiff’s counsel wants this motion considered by the
Court. Any opposition thereto shall be filed by 10:00 am on Wednesday, May 20, 2015.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: May 12, 2015

_____________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2