Cajero Torres et al v. Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc.

Filing 99

ORDER: The Court has received correspondence from pro se defendant Igor Greenberg regarding the final pretrial conference scheduled for April 1, 2021, and the parties' pretrial submissions. See Dkts. 97, 98. The Court grants Grinberg's r equest to adjourn that conference. It will be instead take place on Tuesday, April 6, 2021, at 4:30 p.m., on the same conference line discussed in the Court's prior order. See Dkt. 88. If Grinberg believes that he submitted a filing to the pro se office but it has not been docketed, he should contact the pro se office for further assistance. The Court has not received any proposed voir dire from Grinberg. Finally, Grinberg appears to seek to file a motion to preclude certain exhibits p roposed by plaintiffs in the parties' proposed joint pretrial order, i.e., a motion in limine. Dkt. 98. His deadline to do so, after an extension occasioned by his failure to participate in the preparation of the proposed joint pretrial order, was March 12, 2021. See Dkts. 8083. The Court was clear that it would "not grant any further extensions of this deadline." Dkt. 83. Accordingly, Grinberg's request is denied; he may not now submit any motions in limine to exclude plaintiffs' proposed exhibits. SO ORDERED. (Telephone Conference set for 4/6/2021 at 04:30 PM before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/30/2021) (jca)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RICARDO CAJERO TORRES, et al., Plaintiffs, 19 Civ. 2532 (PAE) (RWL) -vORDER SUSHI SUSHI HOLDINGS INC., et al., Defendants. PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: The Court has received correspondence from pro se defendant Igor Greenberg regarding the final pretrial conference scheduled for April 1, 2021, and the parties’ pretrial submissions. See Dkts. 97, 98. The Court grants Grinberg’s request to adjourn that conference. It will be instead take place on Tuesday, April 6, 2021, at 4:30 p.m., on the same conference line discussed in the Court’s prior order. See Dkt. 88. If Grinberg believes that he submitted a filing to the pro se office but it has not been docketed, he should contact the pro se office for further assistance. The Court has not received any proposed voir dire from Grinberg. Finally, Grinberg appears to seek to file a motion to preclude certain exhibits proposed by plaintiffs in the parties’ proposed joint pretrial order, i.e., a motion in limine. Dkt. 98. His deadline to do so, after an extension occasioned by his failure to participate in the preparation of the proposed joint pretrial order, was March 12, 2021. See Dkts. 80–83. The Court was clear that it would “not grant any further extensions of this deadline.” Dkt. 83. Accordingly, Grinberg’s request is denied; he may not now submit any motions in limine to exclude plaintiffs’ proposed exhibits. SO ORDERED. PaJA.� __________________________________ PAUL A. ENGELMAYER United States District Judge Dated: March 30, 2021 New York, New York 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?