Idom v. Natchez-Adams School District et al

Filing 84

ORDER denying 81 Motion in Limine; denying 83 Motion to Continue. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on August 13, 2015. (AA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
CINDY IDOM

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO: 5:14-cv-38-DCB-MTP

NATCHEZ-ADAMS SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION IN LIMINE AND MOTION TO CONTINUE
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’, Frederick
Hill, Natchez-Adams School District, and Tanisha W. Smith, Motion
in limine [docket entry no. 81] and Motion to Continue Trial
[docket entry no. 83].
To address these motions, the Courts finds it desirable to set
forth a timeline of this case’s calendar settings.
1.

The trial of this case was originally set for
August 3, 2015, at the request of the defendants,
to accommodate the beginning of the academic year
for

the

school

district

and

the

potential

witnesses.
2.

The Court held a pretrial conference on July 16,
2015, at which the parties discussed settlement.
The Court also set a separate jury instruction
conference for a later date but several days prior
to trial.

1

3.

The first jury instruction conference was set for
July 28, 2015. Defense counsel called the Court
prior to this conference to inform the Court that a
settlement

was

imminent

and

to

suggest

a

cancellation of the jury instruction conference in
light of that fact. The Court obliged.
4.

The school board met on July 29, 2015, and rejected
a settlement.

5.

The Court reset the jury instruction conference for
August 4, 2015, and reset the trial for August 10,
2015.

6.

A lengthy jury instruction conference was held on
August 4th, and the following day the defendants
filed the pending motion in limine to “exclude
evidence

of

Plaintiff’s

alleged

attempts

to

mitigate her damages.” Mot. limine 5, ECF No. 81.
7.

On

August

5th,

the

Court

held

a

telephonic

conference with the parties to discuss the pending
motion in limine. The Court determined with the
advice of the parties that the best course of
action
parties

was

to

time

continue

to

conduct

the

case

limited

to

allow

the

discovery.

The

Court ultimately offered the parties only the date
of August 24, 2015, because of the already laden

2

calendar for the next several weeks and the need to
try this case with the assistance of one of its
clerks whose term will end September 30, 2015. No
objection was raised at that time.
8.

The next morning, the Court formally reset the date
of the trial, moving a previously scheduled trial
in order to do so.

9.

Shortly

thereafter,

defendants

for

an

a

request

alternate

was

made

date

by

because

the
of

Defendant Tanisha W. Smith’s previously scheduled
vacation to Barcelona, Spain on August 23-30. In an
effort
Court

to

further

offered

to

accommodate
move

a

the

parties,

previously

the

scheduled

criminal trial on September 14, 2015. But this
alternative was rejected because of conflicts on
both sides. The Court declined to reset the trial
at that time.
10.

On

August

pending

12,

motion

2015,
to

the

defendants

continue

the

filed
trial.

the
The

defendants offered no alternative trial setting and
failed to mention in their timeline of the trial
setting

the

originally

scheduled

date

that was

cancelled due to their failure to settle. Further,
the defendants informed the Court of conflicts on

3

both

September

21st

and

September

28th.

The

defendants offered no additional justification for
their request except that “[i]f Defendants must go
forward and try this case without Defendant Smith,
Defendants will be prejudiced, as Defendant Smith
is not only a Defendant in the case but a witness
that will testify during the trial.” Mot. Continue
¶8, ECF No. 83.
The Court has made every effort to reschedule this trial and
accommodate the parties.

The trial of this matter will begin on

August 24, 2015, at 9:00am in the United States Courthouse in
Natchez, Mississippi. If the presence of Defendant Smith cannot be
secured, the parties may examine her before trial on film to be
played to the jury in her absence.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Motion in limine is DENIED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this the 13th day of August 2015.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4