Opinion
Case No. 1:04CV313.
November 9, 2006
ORDER
In preparation for a trial involving relatively straightforward claims of employment discrimination and promissory estoppel, the parties in this action have deluged this Court with voluminous filings. In addition to a number of deposition designations (docs. 102-109, 113), objections to those designations (docs. 101, 111), amended witness lists (docs. 84, 85), and amended exhibit lists (docs. 115, 117) filed by both parties, Plaintiff has filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude Employment Information Regarding Decision Makers and Managers after Plaintiff's Termination (doc. 71), and Defendant has filed the following:
(1) Motion in Limine Concerning Allegations Related to Dan Rasmussen (doc. 72);
(2) Motion in Limine Concerning Discovery Disputes and Rulings (doc. 73);
(3) Motion in Limine Concerning Allegations of "Stereotypical" Facts in an Age Discrimination Case (doc. 74);
(4) Motion in Limine Concerning Allegations that Cancellation of Unvested Stock Options Creates a Benefit for Dollar General (doc. 75);
(5) Motion in Limine Concerning Allegations that Defendant has taken Inconsistent Positions Regarding its Reason for Termination of Plaintiff (doc. 76);
(6) Motion in Limine Concerning Allegations of Remote and/or Speculative Employment Actions (doc. 77);
(7) Motion in Limine Concerning the Court's Denial of Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Remaining Claims (doc. 78);
(8) Motion in Limine Concerning General Hearsay, Speculation and Irrelevant "Me Too" Evidence (doc. 79);
(9) Motion in Limine Concerning Similarly Situated Comparators to Plaintiff (doc. 80);
(10) Motion to Strike Kathleen Guion From Plaintiff's Final Witness List (doc. 81);
(11) Motion in Limine Concerning Dollar General's 2005 Investigation (doc. 83);
(12) Objections to Plaintiff's Trial Witnesses (doc. 98);
(13) Motion for Leave to File Motion in Limine Concerning Plaintiff's Mitigation of Damages (doc. 110); and
(14) Objections to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits (Doc. 112).
In the interest of judicial economy, the Court finds it necessary to preclude the filing of any further pretrial pleadings in this case, pursuant to its power under Rule 16(c)(16) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that the Court "may take appropriate action, with respect to . . . such other matters as may facilitate the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the action." Accordingly, the Court will not accept any additional pretrial pleadings. If the parties have any new matters they would like to bring to the Court's attention, they may do so during the trial beginning on the morning of November 13, 2006.
IT IS SO ORDERED.