Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Michigan Resin Representatives, LLC et al

Filing 226

ORDER striking 220 Motion in liminie filed by John H Lemanski, Jr., and denying 219 Motion to exceed the page limit filed by John H Lemanski, Jr. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BARRETTE OUTDOOR LIVING, INC.,
d/b/a U.S. FENCE INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 11-cv-13335
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
v.

MICHIGAN RESIN REPRESENTATIVES, LLC,
JOHN H. LEMANSKI, JR.,
LISA J. WELLS,
TAMARA L. TURNER,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JOHN H. LEMANSKI=S MOTION
TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT [#219]
Presently before the Court is Defendant Lemanski=s Motion to Exceed the Page Limit in
relation to his Motion in Limine [#220], both filed on January 6, 2015. Defendant asserts that he
should be granted leave to file in excess of the page limit because he intends to establish that
Barrette has made false representations; to refute false allegations; and to preserve efficient
adjudication of the court. Dkt. No. 219. Defendant thereby requests that he be able to submit up
to a 37-page brief.
Upon review of the Defendant=s motion, the Court concludes that Defendant has failed to
demonstrate good cause for exceeding the page limit set forth in this Court=s local rules. See E.D.
Mich. L.R. 7.1(d)(3)(A). Motions in limine serve a limited purpose. See Louzon v. Ford Motor
Co., 718 F.3d 556, 561 (6th Cir. 2013). As an initial matter, Defendant Lemanski should be
1

advised that, “[a] motion in limine is ‘any motion, whether made before or during trial, to
exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Id. (citing Luce
v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, n.2 (1984). “‘[A] motion in limine is designed to narrow the
evidentiary issues for trial and to eliminate unnecessary trial interruptions.’” Id. (citing Bradley
v. Pittsburgh Bd. of. Educ., 913 F.2d 1064, 1069 (3d Cir. 1990)).
Defendant, however, puts forth general reasons for his need for excess pages that are not
aligned with the limited and, primarily, procedural purpose of this type of motion. The Court
finds that Defendant’s evidentiary arguments can be made within the 25-page limit. As a final
matter, the Court ORDERS that Defendant reform his brief in accordance with the local court
rules regarding format and type size. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 5.1(a)(1)-(3).
Accordingly, Plaintiff=s Motion to Exceed the Page Limit [#219] is DENIED.
Defendants=s Motion in Limine [#220] is HEREBY STRICKEN.
The Court FURTHER ORDERS Defendant to file a new Motion in Limine in
accordance with this Court=s local rules, in regard to page limits, format, and type size, no later
than Noon EST on Monday, January 12, 2015.
Plaintiff may file a Response to Defendant’s Motion in Limine by Tuesday, January 20,
2015, no later than Noon EST.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2015
/s/Gershwin A Drain
HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2