From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ferguson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
May 7, 2012
Case No. 10-20535 (E.D. Mich. May. 7, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 10-20535

05-07-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BOBBY W. FERGUSON, MICHAEL WOODHOUSE, CALVIN L. HALL, FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC., XCEL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., and A & F ENVIRONMENTAL/JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, Defendants.


Honorable David M. Lawson


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE

On May 7, 2012, the defendants filed three motions in limine. The motion cut-off date in this case was October 31, 2011. The defendants have not sought leave to file their motions outside this deadline, nor have they demonstrated good cause, or offered any reason, for enlarging the deadline.

In addition, in this district, movants must seek concurrence in the relief requested before filing a motion or request with this Court. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a). 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 defendants do not state in their motions that concurrence was sought from the government 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 defendants have filed their motions in violation of the applicable rules.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendants' motions in limine [dkts. #189, 190, 191] are DENIED.

______________________

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on May 7, 2012.

DEBORAH R. TOFIL


Summaries of

United States v. Ferguson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
May 7, 2012
Case No. 10-20535 (E.D. Mich. May. 7, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Ferguson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BOBBY W. FERGUSON, MICHAEL…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: May 7, 2012

Citations

Case No. 10-20535 (E.D. Mich. May. 7, 2012)