Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00817/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00817-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHARLES LOFT,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATIONARY ENGINEERS, LOCAL 39 

PTF, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN 

LIMINE NO. 2

Re: Dkt. No. 68

A final pretrial conference is scheduled in this case for May 21, 2015. ECF No. 24. 

Pursuant to Guidelines for Final Pretrial Conference in Jury Trials Before District Judge Lucy H. 

Koh, “the parties shall file and serve any motions in limine at least 14 days before the final Pretrial 

Conference, and any opposition thereto at least 10 days before the final Pretrial Conference.” 

Accordingly, motions in limine in this case were due to be filed and served on May 7, 2015, and 

oppositions on May 11, 2015.

On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel purported to file “in limine motion number two.” See 

ECF No. 68-1 (“Declaration of Robert David Baker in Support of in limine Motion Number 

Two.”). However, Plaintiff’s counsel did not file a second motion in limine by May 7, 2015, and 

appears to have filed two copies of Exhibit A to Mr. Baker’s declaration, rather than one copy of 

Case 5:14-cv-00817-LHK Document 77 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 14-CV-00817-LHK 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the motion in limine and one copy of Exhibit A. Compare ECF No. 68 with ECF No. 68-2. Nor 

did Plaintiff’s counsel serve Plaintiff’s second motion in limine on Defendant by May 7, 2015,

based on Defendant’s statement in opposition that Defendant “is unaware of the basis for [the] 

motion and/or the exclusion of unknown documents or evidence.” See ECF No. 71. Because this 

is an issue the parties should have resolved amongst themselves as a matter of professional 

courtesy, and in fairness to the Plaintiff, the Court will permit Plaintiff’s counsel a limited window 

within which to re-file Plaintiff’s motion in limine number two.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel has until 10:00 am tomorrow, May 13, 2015, to re-file 

Plaintiff’s second motion in limine if Plaintiff’s counsel wants this motion considered by the 

Court. Any opposition thereto shall be filed by 10:00 am on Wednesday, May 20, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015 _____________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-00817-LHK Document 77 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 2