McArthur v. The Rock Wood Fired Pizza & Spirits et al

Filing 94

ORDER denying plaintiff's 93 Motion for overlength brief by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 8 JENNIFER McARTHUR, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 12 THE ROCK WOODFIRED PIZZA & SPIRITS, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 ) ) CASE NO. C14-0770 RSM ) ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ) MOTION FOR OVERLENGTH BRIEF ) ) ) ) ) ) THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Overlength Brief. Dkt. #93. By way of the motion, Plaintiff seeks to file a 47-page motions in limine brief, on the 17 basis that her numerous evidentiary issues require an additional 29 pages of briefing over the 18 19 limit set forth in Local Civil Rule 7(e)(5). Id. The Court DENIES this motion. 20 First, the Court notes that much of Plaintiff’s proposed Motions In Limine brief 21 contains impermissible discovery-related requests which should have been filed by the 22 discovery motions deadline of October 28, 2016. See Dkt. #93, Ex. 1. Plaintiff may not use 23 24 25 Motions In Limine as a substitute for making discovery-related motions that should have been filed months ago. 26 Second, Plaintiff has proposed an overlength brief that is not complete, suggesting to 27 this Court that Plaintiff’s actual brief may be even longer than the 47 pages requested. For 28 example, nearly all citations to the record are missing from the proposed brief and there are no ORDER PAGE - 1 1 2 3 4 supporting facts or argument at all pertaining to the request to exclude testimony of Scott Wallis. See Dkt. #93, Ex. 1 at 11. Third, many of the arguments made by Plaintiff in her proposed brief are more appropriately raised as specific objections during trial. For example, Plaintiff seeks to exclude 5 numerous documents on the basis that they were not produced during discovery or constitute 6 7 hearsay. See, e.g., Dkt. #93, Ex. 1 at 15-18. Such objections may be handled during trial as 8 documents are offered into admission, or at the pre-trial conference after the parties complete 9 the proposed pre-trial Order that specifically includes a section noting objections to the 10 admissibility of certain evidence. 11 The Court reminds Plaintiff that Motions In Limine are used for the purpose of 12 13 requesting that the Court prohibit opposing counsel from referring to or offering evidence on 14 matters that are so highly prejudicial to the moving party that later instructions cannot cure any 15 prejudicial effect. They are not used to address typical objections to the gamut of evidence 16 proposed by the opposing party. Nothing in Plaintiff’s proposed brief convinces this Court that 17 18 she requires more than 18 pages for properly presented motions in limine. Accordingly: 19 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Overlength Brief (Dkt. #93) is DENIED. 20 2. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts she will simply present “pocket briefs” on the 21 issues she cannot brief in her motion, Plaintiff is hereby directed that she SHALL 22 NOT file any such “pocket brief” unless and until the Court requests such briefing. 23 24 DATED this 24th day of March 2017. 25 A 26 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 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?