United States District Court, D. Hawaii
(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE DEADLINE TO
FILE MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND THE SIXTH AMENDED
RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER TO PERMIT THE FILING OF THREE
ADDITIONAL MOTIONS IN LIMINE
A. Otake United States District Judge.
Gramercy Group Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants
D.A. Builders, LLC and David A. Alcos III (collectively
“Defendants”) both request leave to amend the
motions in limine deadline set forth in the Sixth Amended
Rule 16 Scheduling Order filed on June 15, 2018. The Court
elects to decide this matter without a hearing pursuant to
Rule 7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Hawaii. After careful
consideration of the parties' submissions, the record,
and the applicable law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's
Motion and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants'
Motion for the reasons set forth below.
Court and the parties are familiar with the extensive history
in this case, it need not be recounted here.
November 9, 2017, the Court issued a Fourth Amended Rule 16
Scheduling Order, which established February 20, 2018, as the
deadline to file motions in limine. Doc. No. 177. In the
subsequently issued Fifth and Sixth Amended Rule 16
Scheduling Orders, the motions in limine deadline was closed.
parties filed motions in limine pursuant to the February 20,
2018 deadline. On March 5, 2018, Chief Judge Seabright issued
an Entering Order (“EO”) terming all motions in
limine pending the scheduling of a new trial date and
instructing the parties to file notices of reinstatement of
August 27, 2018, Judge Chang issued an Order Denying
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Sixth Amended Scheduling
Order [Dkt. 306] to Permit the Filing of a Non-Dispositive
Motion. Doc. No. 322. Judge Chang determined that
“[a]llowing Plaintiff to file a motion to amend the
scheduling order for the purpose of reopening discovery and
extending the deadline to file additional motions in limine
at this late date will disrupt the timely and orderly
administration of this case.” Id. at 4. He
also noted that the “continuance of the March 13, 2018
trial date was due to the pendency of motions for summary
judgment and Chief Judge Seabright's schedule, not to
allow continued motions practice and litigation.”
Id. at n.2.
October 15, 2018 status conference, the parties requested,
and this Court authorized, the filing of motions for leave to
file additional motions in limine. Doc. No. 369.
October 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the
Deadline to File Motions in Limine, Doc. No. 380, and
Defendants filed a Motion to Amend the Sixth Amended Rule 16
Scheduling Order to Permit the Filing of Three Additional
Motions in Limine, Doc. No. 379, both of which are the
subject of this Order.
October 18, 2018, the Court issued a Seventh Amended Rule 16
Scheduling Order to reflect the new December 3, 2018 trial
date and reset all trial-related deadlines in accordance with
said trial date. Doc. No. 390.
seeks leave to file a motion in limine to exclude the
testimony of Paul Versage and a motion in limine to exclude
witnesses with no personal knowledge. Defendants wish to file a
motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff's untimely October
8, 2018 production; a motion in limine to exclude untimely
substitutions and additions to its previously identified and
produced trial ...