UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROBERT LEVANDER,

Plaintiff, Case Number 08-14241

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

I.C. SYSTEM, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE TARDY 

MOTION IN LIMINE, AND DENYING MOTION IN LIMINE

The Court entered a scheduling order on December 10, 2008, requiring that the parties file

any motions in limine on or before May 11, 2009. On May 13, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion,

asking that he be permitted to file a tardy motion in limine. The plaintiff argues that he missed the

deadline by only two days, and allowing the late filing will not interfere with any other orders in the

scheduling order. He also alleges that there was staff confusion in his counsel’s office related to a

technology upgrade. The Court finds that the request for two additional days is reasonable, and will

grant the request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

Also on May 13, 2009, the plaintiff filed his motion in limine. Eastern District of Michigan

Local Rule 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 plaintiff is well aware of this rule,

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 62, PageID.882 Filed 05/21/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

as the Court previously denied a motion he filed for failure to seek concurrence. The requirement

that concurrence be sought before filing a motion has special force in the context of a motion in

limine, as often the other party has no intention of offering the allegedly offending evidence at trial.

The plaintiff’s motion does not state that concurrence was sought from the defendant, nor does it

even contain a serious representation that the defendant intends to offer any of the evidence at trial.

The Court cannot know what evidentiary issues are actually in dispute from the plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff has filed his

motion in limine in violation of the applicable rules.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file tardy motion [dkt.

#52] is GRANTED. The plaintiff may file a motion in limine on or before May 13, 2009.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion in limine [dkt. #53] is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: May 21, 2009

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 21, 2009.

s/Susan K. Pinkowski 

SUSAN K. PINKOWSKI

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 62, PageID.883 Filed 05/21/09 Page 2 of 2