Forsberg v. Pefanis et al, No. 1:2007cv03116 - Document 165 (N.D. Ga. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER. The court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's 127 first motion in limine; GRANTS Plaintiff's 130 motion in limine; GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' 132 cross-motion in limine; GRANTS Defendants' 140 , 142 , and 143 motions for extension of time to file statement of case and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' 120 motion to compel disclosure of witnesses. Signed by Judge J. Owen Forrester on 10/7/09. (bse)
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Evangelina Forsberg, Plaintiffs, v. James Pefanis, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-cv-03116-JOF-RGV OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendants motion to compel disclosure of witnesses [120]; Plaintiff s first motion in limine [127]; Plaintiff s motion in limine [130]; Defendants cross-motion in limine [132]; and Defendants motions for extension of time to file statement of case [140], [142], and [143]. The court held a pre-trial conference in this case on July 14, 2009. The court discussed the parties motions in limine at that conference and the transcript of that conference serves as the order of the court. The court GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Plaintiff s first motion in limine [127]; GRANTED Plaintiff s motion in limine [130]; and GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Defendants cross-motion in limine [132]. AO 72A (Rev.8/82) At the July 14, 2009, conference, the court also directed the parties to file amended statements of the case. The court GRANTS Defendants motions for extension of time to file statement of case [140], [142], and [143]. Finally, on September 21, 2009, the court discussed with the parties Defendants motion to compel the name of a witness who would testify on matters related to Farrah Bowers. The court made no ruling at that time but noted the limited circumstances under which such a previously unidentified witness would be permitted to testify. Therefore, the court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants motion to compel disclosure of witnesses [120]. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of October 2009. /s J. Owen Forrester J. OWEN FORRESTER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 AO 72A (Rev.8/82)