Bourne et al v. Madison, Town of, et al

Filing 180

ORDER denying as moot 177 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Defendant's Partial Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment on Counterclaim; terminating 178 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Defendant's Objection to P laintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment of Interference with Contractual Relations ; denying without prejudice 140 Motion to Relieve the named Defendants/Counterclaimants from filing a pretrial statement at this time ; denying without prejudice 144 Motion in Limine to Limit Evidence of Damages Regarding Tortious Interference Claims; denying without prejudice 150 Motion to Strike Pretrial Statement (Witness List in Part) ; denying without prejudice 153 Motion in Limine to Preclude Def endant's Exhibits Related to Other Distracting Litigation. Plaintiff's reply submitted with Doc. #178 will be docketed. Deadline for refiling defendants' motion for summary judgment is 2/12/10. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. (dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Samuel J. Bourne v. Town of Madison, et al. ORDER In anticipation of trial, the parties filed pretrial materials and motions addressing those materials. The trial has Civil No. 05-cv-365-JD

now been continued to a date that will be scheduled after the motions for summary judgment are resolved. To avoid confusion,

the motions addressing pretrial materials are denied without prejudice to refile, if necessary, when a new trial schedule is set. In addition, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was improperly included within their objection to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. For that reason, on January 21,

2010, the defendants' were notified that their summary judgment motion must be refiled. refiled their motion. The plaintiff moved for leave to file a reply to the defendants' objection to his motion for summary judgment on his interference with contractual relations claim. Because the reply To date, the defendants' have not

is to an objection to a dispositive motion, however, leave is not

required.

LR 7.1(e)(1).

Instead, the reply must be filed within Id. Because the

fourteen days of service of the objection.

plaintiff mistakenly filed for leave to file his reply, the time to file might pass while that motion is pending. Therefore, the

plaintiff's reply will be docketed, and his motion for leave will be terminated.

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the parties' motions related to pretrial matters for the previously scheduled trial are resolved as follows: 1. the defendants' motion for relief (document no. 140) and

motion to limit evidence of damages (document no. 144), and 2. the plaintiff's motion to strike part of the witness

list (document no. 150) and motion to preclude exhibits (document no. 153) are denied without prejudice. In addition, because the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim (document no. 139) has been denied as moot, the plaintiff's motion (document no. 177) for leave to file a reply to the objection to that motion is also denied as moot.

2

To avoid unnecessary further delay, the deadline for refiling the defendants' motion for summary judgment is February 12, 2010. The plaintiff will have thirty days from the date of Local Rule 7.1(e)(1) shall govern

filing to file his response.

filing a reply, and Local Rule 7.1(e)(3) shall govern filing a surreply. The plaintiff's motion for leave to reply (document no. 178) is terminated. The plaintiff's reply filed with his motion for Local Rule 7.1(e)(3) shall govern the

leave will be docketed.

opportunity to file a surreply.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge February 2, 2010 cc: Samuel J. Bourne, Esquire Brian J.S. Cullen, Esquire Richard D. Sager, Esquire

3