The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jose L. Linares United States District Judge
CHAMBERS OF JOSE L. LINARES JUDGE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. FEDERAL BUILDING & U.S. COURTHOUSE 50 WALNUT ST., ROOM 5054 P.O. Box 999 Newark, NJ 07101-0999 973-645-6042
This matter comes before the Court by way of several filings made by Mr. William D. Manns, Jr., counsel for Defendant Sara Bost. In particular, the Court notes that on August 28, 2007, Mr. Manns filed the following documents in connection with the above matter: (1) "First Motion in Limine by Sara Bost" [CM/ECF Docket Entry No. 60], (2) First Motion in Limine -- Response to Plaintiffs' Opposition" [Entry No. 61], (3) "Second Motion in Limine" [Entry No. 62], (4) "First Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law" [Entry No. 63], and (5) "Second Motion to Dismiss" [Entry No. 64]. It appears that several of such filings were incorrectly labeled.*fn1
Thus, in order to ensure that this matter progresses in an organized fashion, the Court will now address each filing, in turn.
"First Motion in Limine by Sara Bost"
[CM/ECF Docket Entry No. 60]
The document labeled as "First Motion in Limine" [CM/ECF Docket Entry No. 60] is actually a reply brief that relates to Defendants' Cross-Motion in Limine,*fn2 which was submitted in conjunction with Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine seeking to admit evidence of a prior criminal conviction of Defendant Bost.*fn3 Although the Court has been in receipt of Defendants' Cross-Motion in Limine since March 9, 2007, said motion does not, however, appear on this Court's electronic docket.*fn4 Although Mr. Manns' office has been contacted on numerous occasions by my staff, to date, such motion has never been filed electronically. Mr. Manns is hereby ordered to file said Cross-Motion in Limine electronically by Monday, September 10, 2007.*fn5 To the extent that Defendants' Cross-Motion in Limine is not filed electronically by Monday, September 10, 2007, said motion will be deemed withdrawn.
"First Motion in Limine -- Response to Plaintiffs' Opposition"
[CM/ECF Docket Entry No. 61]
The document filed herein appears to be a duplicate of the document filed under CM/ECF Docket Entry No. 60 (see above), and is thus incorrectly labeled as a motion in limine. Accordingly, the Clerk's office is hereby ordered to terminate the motion filed under Entry No. 61.
"Second Motion in Limine" [CM/ECF Docket Entry No. 62]
The second motion in limine filed by Defendant Bost, on August 27, 2007, asks that the Court order separate or bifurcated trials. By way of Order dated March 19, 2007, all parties were prohibited from filing any further motions in limine in connection with the above matter.*fn6 Thus, as a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the aforesaid motion is untimely, and could, therefore, be denied on such a basis. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the arguments made in support of Defendant's second motion in limine and finds that: (1) Defendants' request for separate trials is denied, based on this Court's discretion and in the interest of judicial economy; (2) Defendants' request that the parties be severed is denied, for the same reasons; and (3) Defendants' request that the Court bar Plaintiffs from introducing ...