Cargill, Incorporated v. Kroeger et al

Filing 173

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: The motions in limine (filings 157 , 160 , 162 , 166 , 168 , 170 ) shall be held in abeyance and not considered until the first day of trial during the pretrial conference which will be held in chambers immediately prior to trial, unless a party shall show cause, within five working days of this order, why such deferral would be inappropriate. Plaintiff Cargill's Motion in Limine for a Rule 104(a) Hearing (filing 164 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CARGILL, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,
v.
KURT KROEGER, KATHY
KROEGER, and H & M FARMS,
INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:11CV81

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

In this case one or more motions in limine have been filed (filings 157, 160,
162, 166, 168, 170). It appears that the court should defer consideration of such
motions until at or about time of trial, unless some reason is shown why earlier
consideration is warranted.
In addition to the motions in limine referenced above, plaintiff Cargill has filed
a Motion in Limine for a Rule 104(a) Hearing (filing 164). Inasmuch as I have
previously carefully considered and denied (filing 150) Cargill’s Daubert motion
(filing 102), and because Cargill has failed to provide a specific reason to hold a Rule
104(a) hearing, I shall deny Cargill’s motion in limine.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The motions in limine (filings 157, 160, 162, 166, 168, 170) shall be held

in abeyance and not considered until the first day of trial during the pretrial conference
which will be held in chambers immediately prior to trial, unless a party shall show

cause, within five working days of this order, why such deferral would be
inappropriate; and
2.

Plaintiff Cargill’s Motion in Limine for a Rule 104(a) Hearing (filing

164) is denied.
DATED this 27 th day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2