Crutchfield v. Dillard's, Inc.

Full title: STEPHANIE BROCKMAN CRUTCHFIELD Plaintiff v. DILLARD'S, INC. Defendant

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

Date published: Feb 2, 2006

No. 4:02CV00074 GH (E.D. Ark. Feb. 2, 2006)

Opinion

No. 4:02CV00074 GH.

February 2, 2006

ORDER

GEORGE HOWARD JR., District Judge

Pending before the Court are the August 2^nd motions in limine filed by plaintiff and defendant. The majority of the items listed in these motions appear to be "boilerplate" and do not specify exactly which items in this particular case that the moving party truly believes that the other side will attempt to mention or introduce into evidence. Therefore, the August 2^nd motions in limine (#97 and #98) will be denied without prejudice to renew after counsel have conferred to eliminate unnecessary and broad areas that in reality do not need to be presented to the Court for a ruling.

Additionally, defendant's August 2^nd second motion (#99) in limine is denied without prejudice to renew in light of the Court's August 9^th order continuing the trial and directing the parties to work in good faith towards completing discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.