Mann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 41

ORDER finding as moot 35 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on May 5, 2014. (CNC, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT WINCHESTER
PEGGY E. MANN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12-cv-84-SKL

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion in limine [Doc. 35]. Defendant’s two-sentence
motion seeks to exclude Plaintiff from presenting any evidence or making any arguments “about
the fact that Wal-Mart is a corporation, as well as any reference to its size, revenue, and
profitability.” [Doc. 35 at Page ID # 206]. As grounds for this exclusion, Defendant states that
“[s]uch evidence and/or arguments would be irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.” [Id.].
Defendant provides no citation to any authority, case, or rule in support of its motion in
limine. Thus, the motion is not in compliance with the Local Rules, which require that a motion
“include a concise statement of the factual and legal grounds which justify the ruling sought
from the Court.” E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 7. However, it appears from
the parties proposed final pretrial order that the parties have stipulated: “The parties agree to
exclude at trial any evidence or arguments about the fact that Wal-Mart is a corporation, as well
as any reference to its size, revenue, and profitability.” Accordingly, Defendant’s motion in
limine [Doc. 35] is MOOT and the Clerk is DIRECTED to term the motion.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE