Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00583-GIVIS Document 75 Filed 08/15/2005 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Y
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE _
In re INACOM CORP., et al., Bankruptcy Case No. 00-2426 (PIW)
INACOM CORP., on behalf of all afiiliated Civil Action No. 04-583 (GMS)
Debtors, [Bk Adv. Case No. 02-3500 (PIW)]
Plaintiff,
v.
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., I
Defendant.
AND RELATED THIRD PARTY _
ACTION.
` PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Plaintiff Inacom Corp. files this Motion for Leave to File Motions in Limine (the
“Motion") in an abundance of caution to ensure that it is in compliance with the Court’s pretrial in
procedures. In accordance with the Court's form of Final Pretrial Order, Plaintiff has identified
and filed its motions in limine concurrently with the filing of the Pretrial Order. (The motions in
limine are also identified in Exhibit A hereto.) Plaintiff has also heard, however, that the Court
does not always accept motions in limine in actions before the Court as a result of withdrawal of
the reference from the Bankruptcy Court. As such, Plaintiff has taken this extraordinary step to
seek the Court's leave to file its four motions in limine in this action.
Plaintiff submits that the motions in limine will greatly assist the Court in streamlining _
the trial of this matter by excluding inappropriate evidence. The Court has authority to exclude
evidence based on a motion in limine, pursuant to its “inherent power to manage the course of
trials." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41, 105 S.Ct. 460, 463, fn.2 (1984); United States v. in-
Holmquist, 36 F.3d 154, 163 (1st Cir. 1994). Motions in limine are well recognized in the case I
42125-n0smocs_uE;110s40.1 -

Case 1 :04-cv—00583-GIVIS Document 75 Filed 08/15/2005 Page 2 of 2
law as a vehicle for "advance planning [that] helps both parties and the court.” United States v.
Cook, 608 F.2d 1175, 1186 (9m Cir. 1979). See Padillas v. Stork-Gamco, Inc., 186 F.3d 412, 417 0
(B"' cir. 1999). .
Plaintiff thus respectfully requests that the Court grant leave to file and pursue its motions
in limine in this matter.
Dated: August I 2005 PACHULSKI, STANG, ZIEHL, YOUNG, JONES S
& WEINTRAUB P.C.
Laura Davis Jones (Bar N0. 2436)
Sandra McLamb (Bar N0. 4283)
919 North Market Street, 16th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19899-8705 (Courier 19801)
Telephone: (302) 652-4100
Facsimile: (302) 652-4400 _
Andrew W. Caine (CA Bar No. 110345)
. Jeffrey P. Nolan (CA Bar No. 158923) {
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1100 F
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 277-6910
Facsimile: (310) 201-0760
Counsel for Plaintiff, INACOM CORP. 5
42125-003\DOCS_DE:l 10040.1 2

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 75

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 75

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 2 of 2