Grady v. Brodersen

Filing 110

ORDER: Plaintiff's 109 Motion to Strike Defendant's Untimely Motion in Limine is granted, but only insofar as it is consistent with the forgoing findings and conclusions and the following orders: that under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a) & (d) a nd REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.E.2., Defendant Evan Brodersen's Motion in Limine [# 90 ] is denied; and that the Amended Minute Order [# 108 ] entered 4/28/2015, requiring the plaintiff to respond to certain portions of the motion in limine, is withdrawn. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 4/29/2015.(alowe)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Action No. 13-cv-00752-REB-NYW JAMES S. GRADY, d/b/a Group Five Photosports, Plaintiff, v. EVAN BRODERSEN, a/k/a EFAN BRUDER, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants. ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION IN LIMINE Blackburn, J. The matter is before me is Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Defendant’s Untimely Motion In Limine [#109]1 filed April 28, 2015. I deny Defendant Evan Brodersen’s Motion in Limine [#90] filed April 20, 2015, and withdraw Minute Order [#108] . This case is set for a jury trial to begin at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, May 4, 2015. On April 20, 2015, fourteen days before trial (nine business days before trial) the defendant filed Defendant Evan Brodersen’s Motion In Limine [#90]. On April 28, 2015, I entered a Minute Order [#108] requiring the plaintiff to respond to certain portions of the motion in limine. The plaintiff then filed his motion to strike. The plaintiff contends that given the timing for a response and reply to a motion, as provided in D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d), the plaintiff does not have adequate time to respond to the motion in limine. The plaintiff notes also that the motion in limine [#90] does not include 1 “[#109]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order. a certificate of compliance with the duty to confer requirement of D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a). In addition, I note REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.E.2., which provides: In the extremely limited circumstances in which a motion in limine is necessary to determine an issue of law, it shall be filed and determined in the time and manner prescribed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d), and REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.B.1. The failure of the defendant to include in his motion a certificate of compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a) is, per se, a sufficient basis to deny the motion in limine. Additionally, by waiting inexplicably until April 20, 2015, to file his motion in limine, the defendant violated D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) and REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.E.2. Given these circumstances, I find and conclude that the defendant has forfeited his right to a pretrial determination of the issues raised in his motion in limine [#90]. To the extent the plaintiff may seek to present at trial evidence which was not properly disclosed in discovery, such issues will be addressed at trial. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Defendant’s Untimely Motion In Limine [#109] filed April 28, 2015, is granted, but only insofar as it is consistent with the forgoing findings and conclusions and the following orders; 2. That under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a) & (d) and REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.E.2., Defendant Evan Brodersen’s Motion in Limine [#90] filed April 20, 2015, is denied; and 3. That the Amended Minute Order [#108] entered April 28, 2015, requiring the plaintiff to respond to certain portions of the motion in limine, is withdrawn. 2 Dated April 29, 2015, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?