Opinion
CV-15-00152-TUC-RM
04-07-2022
Louis Taylor, Plaintiff, v. County of Pima, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
HONORABLE ROSEMARY MARQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Order Prohibiting Motions in Limine (Doc. 376) and Motion for Expedited Hearing re: Motion for Order Prohibiting Motions in Limine (Doc. 378). Defendants request expedited rulings on both Motions. Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendants' Motion for Order Prohibiting Motions in Limine on April 6, 2022 (Doc. 388), and Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 391).
Other pending Motions will be resolved separately.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff was required to include all objections to Defendants' summary judgment evidence in his Controverting Statement of Facts, and he should not be allowed to supplement his objections with later-filed motions in limine. (Doc. 376.) Defendants further argue that Plaintiff's motions in limine will unnecessarily prolong resolution of the parties' summary judgment motions, and that motions in limine seeking to preclude trial evidence are premature. (Id.)
In his Response, Plaintiff argues that he preserved in his Controverting Statement of Facts the arguments that he intends to file in his motions in limine. (Doc. 388 at 4.) Plaintiff further notes that the motion in limine deadline in this case has not yet passed. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff states that, in addition to his already filed Motion in Limine Regarding Prior Testimony of Robert Jackson (Doc. 377), he intends to file motions in limine addressing the prior testimony of Cy Holmes and the opinions of Rick Unklesbay and Malena Acosta. (Doc. 388 at 3-4.) He further states that he will file the motions on or before April 11, 2022. (Doc. 388 at 5.)
The Court will deny Defendants' Motions. The motion in limine deadline has not yet passed or been set, and motions in limine may assist the Court in resolving the parties' summary judgment motions. To the extent that Defendants believe Plaintiff did not properly preserve in his Controverting Statement of Facts any arguments that he raises in his motions in limine, Defendants may make that argument in response to the motions in limine. However, the Court will not allow Plaintiff to file any motions in limine other than the motions specified in his Response (Doc. 388), specifically, the motions regarding Jackson, Holmes, Unklesbay, and Acosta. Furthermore, any motions in limine must be filed on or before April 11, 2022, if the movant wishes the Court to consider the motion in ruling on the parties' summary judgment motions. Responses, including Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs Motion in Limine Regarding Prior Testimony of Robert Jackson (Doc. 377), shall be filed on or before April 25, 2022.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motions (Doc. 376, 378) are denied. Any motions in limine to be considered in conjunction with the parties' summary judgment motions must be filed on or before April 11, 2022. Responses must be filed on or before April 25, 2022. Replies must be filed on or before May 2, 2022.