Eubanks v. Grand Rapids, City of et al

Filing 103

ORDER denying 69 motion in limine ; signed by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney (Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney, aeb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ________________________________________________ ROBERT EUBANKS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS and ADAM BAYLIS, Defendants. ________________________________________________ Order Denying without Prejudice as Premature the Plaintiff's Motion In Limine On October 23, 2008, plaintiff Eubanks filed a motion in limine, anticipating the final pretrial conference on October 27, 2008. A pretrial conference was indeed held on October 27, 2008, but another, final pretrial conference was scheduled for April 20, 2009, and jury trial was scheduled to commence on May 18, 2009. In April 2009, on the eve of the final pretrial conference, plaintiff Eubanks moved to adjourn the trial sine die to afford the parties time to engage in the court's Case Evaluation program and try to reach a settlement. See Doc. No. 89. The court granted the motion and referred to the parties to case evaluation, and on May 1, 2009 the three-member case evaluation panel was selected. See Doc. Nos. 91-93. In August 2009, the court granted the parties' motion to extend the time for completion of alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") until October 2, 2009. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion in limine [document #69] is DENIED without | | | Case No. 1:05-cv-620 | | HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY | Chief United States District Judge | | | | | | prejudice. If the parties do not reach a settlement and trial is scheduled, the plaintiff MAY file appropriate motions in limine at that time. This is not a final order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of September 2009. /s/ Paul L. Maloney Honorable Paul L. Maloney Chief United States District Judge -2-

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?