Rural Water District No. 2, Creek County v. Glenpool, City of et al

Filing 151

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge James H Payne ; striking/withdrawing document(s); granting 149 Motion to Clarify (Re: 144 MOTION in Limine and Brief in Support to Exclude Portions of the Proposed Testimony of Lowell Peterson, [14 2] MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Argument Concerning Affirmative Defenses and Brief in Support, 143 Supplement, 148 MOTION in Limine and Brief in Support to Exclude Portions of the Proposed Testimony of Phil Frazier, 140 MOTION in Limine and Daubert Motion to Exclude any Expert Engineering Testimony by Defendants and Brief in Support ) (Documents Terminated: 142 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Argument Concerning Affirmative Defen ses and Brief in Support, 148 MOTION in Limine and Brief in Support to Exclude Portions of the Proposed Testimony of Phil Frazier, 144 MOTION in Limine and Brief in Support to Exclude Portions of the Proposed Testimony of Lowell Peterson, 140 MOTION in Limine and Daubert Motion to Exclude any Expert Engineering Testimony by Defendants and Brief in Support, 143 Supplement ) (pll, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Rural Water District No. 2, Creek County,
Oklahoma, an agency and legally constituted
authority of the State of Oklahoma,
Plaintiff,
v.

City of Glenpool, an Oklahoma
municipality and the Glenpool
Utility Services Authority, a
public trust,

Defendants.

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

Case No. 11-CV-441-JHP-PJC

OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Clarification Regarding
Motions in Limine Response and Reply Deadlines.
The parties notified the Court this case had settled on August 21, 2014, and an
Administrative Closing Order was entered. (Dkt. # 108). The Scheduling Order in place when
this case was administratively closed on August 21, 2014, had transpired past all deadlines for
Motions in Limine and Daubert Motions. In fact, on August 21, 2014, Motions in Limine and
Daubert Motions had already been filed pursuant to the Scheduling Order deadline of August 5,
2014.(Dkt.# 44).
When settlement negotiations failed, the Court reopened the case and entered a new
Scheduling Order on April 1, 2015. (Dkt.# 128). The Court’s April 1, 2015 Scheduling Order
merely reinstated the case at the point it had been administratively closed on August 21, 2014,
and clearly stated that all motions in Limine and Daubert Motions had been filed. (Dkt.# 128).
The Court entered an additional Order on April 1, 2105 (Dkt.# 129), stating that “Due to the case
being reopened, ....the parties are directed to file a notice with the court identifying which
previously filed motions should be reinstated (Dkt.# 129)(emphasis added). The parties filed a

Joint Statement of Pending Motions on April 3, 2015. (Dkt.# 131). Based on the filing of the
Joint Statement of Pending Motions, the Court reinstated the previously filed motions and set
response and reply deadlines (Dkt.# 132)(emphasis added).
Therefore, it is clear the April 1, 2015 Scheduling Order did not contemplate additional
motions in limine, or Daubert motions, as those deadlines had long since transpired. In fact, at
the point the parties represented to the Court the case had settled on August 21, 2014, and the
Administrative Closing Order was entered, the case had been on file since July 14, 2011, and
was less than a month before the contemplated trial date of September 16, 2014. (emphasis
added).
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Clarification
Regarding Motions in Limine Response and Reply Deadlines and strikes Dkt.#s 140, 142, 143,
144 and 148 as untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of May, 2015.