Opinion
99 Civ. 9568 (LAK).
February 14, 2005
ORDER
As evidenced by the parties letters of the 10th and 11th of this month, their inability to work out a proper joint pretrial order continues, partly in consequence of substantial disagreement about the proper scope of the plaintiffs' evidence and partly in consequence of some degree of unwillingness of plaintiffs to be specific about the case they propose to present.
To the extent that this failure is attributable to a substantive disagreement, the Court agrees with defendants that the best remedy may well be motion practice for in limine rulings concerning the admissibility and appropriate use of proposed statistical, expert and anecdotal evidence. Accordingly, defendants shall file any such motions on or before March 4, 2005. Plaintiffs shall file a single, consolidated opposition no later than March 16, 2005. Any reply shall be filed no later than March 23, 2005.
The Court trusts that the parties will continue their efforts to resolve the outstanding problems notwithstanding the anticipated motion practice. The parties are advised also that the Court will consider imposing time limitations on the trial if that proves necessary. See, e.g., Evans Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 246 F.Supp.2d 343 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Wantanabe Realty Corp. v. City of New York, No. 01 Civ. 10137 (LAK), 2004 WL 2112566, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2004).
SO ORDERED.