Bell v. Coleman et al

Filing 95

ORDER denying 89 Motion for Extension of Time; Striking 91 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 6/25/2018. (dbm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
JEFFERY BELL

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:17-CV-47-SA-JMV

ANTONIO COLEMAN, and
WHOLESALE GLASS DISTRIBUTORS, INC.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
A week after the deadline for filing motions in limine passed, the Defendants filed a Motion
[89] requesting an extension of the deadline for all Parties. The instant Motion fails to provide any
explanation as to why the Parties failed to meet the deadline. The instant Motion also fails to
provide any argument or reasons as to why the deadline should be extended and fails to comply
with Local Uniform Civil Rule 7(b). For all of these reasons, the Defendant’s Motion for Extension
of Time [89] is denied.
Before the Court had an opportunity to rule on the time extension, the Defendants filed a
Motion in Limine [91] out of time and without leave from the Court. Because this Motion is clearly
untimely, the Court strikes the Motion and will not consider it.
The Defendants Motion for Extension of Time [89] is DENIED.
The Defendants’ Motion in Limine [91] is STRICKEN.
It is SO ORDERED, on this the 25th day of June, 2018
/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE