Hulihan v. Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada et al

Filing 98

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr, on 6/24/2011. Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification of order 79 . The motion for clarification is DENIED without prejudice. The hearing date which is referred to in the moti on has been vacated by the Court 97 . Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Reply to Judge Reed's Motion 78 ". Plaintiff's reply will be treated as a motion for reconsideration of order 88 . The motion to reconsider is DENIED. O rder 88 clearly makes reference to Plaintiff's motion to enter evidence 56 . Defendant's motion to strike 68 is GRANTED. It is premature to consider the admissibility of evidence to be presented at trial at this stage of the proceedings. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

SHARON HULIHAN,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN
NEVADA,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

PRESENT:
Deputy Clerk:

) Case No. 2:09-cv-01096-ECR-RJJ
)
)
) MINUTES OF THE COURT
)
)
)
) Date: June 24, 2011
)
)
)
)
)

EDWARD C. REED, JR.
COLLEEN LARSEN

U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Reporter:

NONE APPEARING

19

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

20

Counsel for Defendant(s)

21

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS

22

Motion for Clarification (#85)

23

Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification of our order (#79) on May 31,
2011 (#85). The motion for clarification is DENIED without prejudice.

24

NONE APPEARING
NONE APPEARING

25

The hearing date which is referred to in the motion has been vacated by
the Court. (#97).

26

Response to Order (#89)

27

Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Reply to Judge Reed’s Motion [78]” on
June 15, 2011 (#89). Plaintiff’s reply will be treated as a motion for
reconsideration of order (#88) filed on June 8, 2011.

28

1
2
3

The motion to reconsider is DENIED. Our order (#88) clearly makes
reference to Plaintiff’s motion to enter evidence (#56).
Motion to Strike (#68)

4

Defendant’s Motion to Strike (#68) filed on October 12, 2010 is
GRANTED.

5

It is premature to consider the admissibility of evidence to be presented at
trial at this stage of the proceedings.

6
7

We do not comment at this time on whether the proposed evidence is or is
not admissible.

8
9
10

LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

11

By

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

/s/
Deputy Clerk