Almer v. Peanut Corporation of America

Filing 297

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. JAMMIE THOMAS, Defendant. Plaintiffs submit this response to Defendant's "Unopposed" Motion in Limine Re References to the First Trial ("Motion," Doc. No. 276). Although Defendant represented the Motion as unopposed, this was the result of a miscommunication among counsel. Plaintiffs agree that the outcome of the first trial has no bearing on the issues to be decided in the upcoming trial but do not believe that Defendant's proposed motion adequately addresses the issue. Plaintiffs ask that this matter be addressed at the pretrial conference set for June 10, 2009. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask that the Court deny Defendant's Motion and that issues relating to any discussion of the first trial be considered and ruled on at the pretrial conference set for June 10, 2009. Case No.: 06cv1497-MJD/RLE PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE REFERENCES TO FIRST TRIAL

#1411665 v1 den

Respectfully submitted this 4th day of June 2009.

/s/ Timothy M. Reynolds Timothy M. Reynolds (pro hac vice) David A. Tonini (pro hac vice) Andrew B. Mohraz (pro hac vice) HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 1700 Lincoln, Suite 4100 Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Felicia J. Boyd (No. 186168) Leita Walker (No. 387095) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3901 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

2
#1411665 v1 den