Free Order on Motion in Limine - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 229

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger Case No. 03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP.- CALIFORNIA, a Utah corporation, Defendant/Counterclaimant, and BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Utah corporation, BIG-D CORPORATION, a Utah corporation, BIG-D CAPITAL CORP., a Wyoming corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants

BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP.- CALIFORNIA, a Utah corporation, BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Utah corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Third Party Plaintiffs, v. MARELICH MECHANICAL CO., INC. dba UNIVERSITY MARELICH MECHANICAL, a California corporation, Third Party Defendant.

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 229

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 2 of 2

MARELICH MECHANICAL CO., INC. dba UNIVERSITY MARELICH MECHANICAL, a California corporation, Third Party Plaintiff/Counterclaimant, v. BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP. - CALIFORNIA, a Utah corporation, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Roes 20 through 80, inclusive, Counterdefendant/Third Party Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS IN LIMINE FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(A)

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on eight motions in limine (#219, #220, #221, #222, #223, #224, #225 & #226). All eight motions fail to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(A). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions (#219, #220, #221, #222, #223, #224, #225 & #226) are DENIED. In order to facilitate the kind of conference Rule 7.1(A) requires, the Court extends the deadline for filing in limine motions to March 1, 2006. Dated this 24th day of February, 2006 BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger United States District Judge

2