Opinion
Case Number: 05-10032-BC.
January 5, 2006
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
This matter is before the Court on two motions in limine filed by the defendant seeking to exclude ceratin evidence at trial. The Court has reviewed the defendant's submissions and finds that it has not sought concurrence from the opposing party in the relief requested.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a) requires a movant to seek concurrence in the relief requested before filing a motion with this Court. If concurrence is obtained, the parties then may present a stipulated order to the Court. If concurrence is not obtained, Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires that the moving party state in the motion that "there was a conference between the attorneys . . . in which the movant explained the nature of the motion and its legal basis and requested but did not obtain concurrence in the relief sought [] or . . . despite reasonable efforts specified in the motion, the movant was unable to conduct a conference." E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(2).
The defendant does not state in its motions that concurrence was sought in the relief requested from the opposing party before filing the motion. "It is not up to the Court to expend its energies when the parties have not sufficiently expended their own." Hasbro, Inc. v. Serafino, 168 F.R.D. 99, 101 (D. Mass. 1996). The defendant has filed its motions in violation of the applicable rules.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant's motions in limine [dkts # 23, 24] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.