Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00148-GIVIS Document 90 Filed O9/O2/2005 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT _
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re INACOM CORP., etal., Bankruptcy Case No. 00-2426 (PJWN) 1
INACOM CORP., on behalf of all affiliated Civil Action No. 04-148 (GMS)
Debtors, [Bk Adv. Case No. 03-50501 (PJW)]
Plaintiff}
v.
[Related to Docket Nos. 70 and 84]
TECH DATA CORPORATION, ‘ ‘
Defendant.
AND RELATED THIRD PARTY .
ACTION.
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY RE ITS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1
Defendant’s Opposition (Docket # 84) is clearly disingenuous, and should be 1
summarily rejected. While Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant’s reading ofthe Court’s °
Scheduling Order to require that motions in limine be filed in advance of the Pretrial Order] ,
Defendant incredibly omits that it not only did not comply with this reading, but also (1) _
Defendant did not identify ANY motions in limine in the Pretrial Order, and yet it filed two such H
motions, and (2) neither of Defendant’s motions in limine complied with the briefing
requirements ofthe Court’s Scheduling Order limiting motions in limine to 5 pages. °
In this light, Defendant’s cries of improper tactics are patently offensive. Plaintiff
filed its motions in good faith, and filed this Motion for Leave to inform the Court of its reading
of the applicable rules and its intentions. Defendant not only cannot point to any prejudice from a
different reading ofthe applicable motion in limine rules, but also has violated its own reading of
{ Plaintiff reads the Court’s Scheduling Order to require that motions in limine be filed concurrently with
the Pretrial Order, and to be identified by each party therein. Particularly in this case, where the Pretrial
Order was tiled on August 15, 2005, briefing on motions in limine will be completed two weeks prior to
the September 19, 2005 Pretrial Conference. `
42125-003\DOCS_DE:l1l254.l

Case 1 :04-cv-00148-GIVIS Document 90 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 2 of 2
the rules, as well as the other related rules noted above, and has not sought leave from the Court 1
on any of these issues. Plaintiff respectfully requests that its Motion for Leave be granted.
Dated: September QJ 2005 PACHULSKI, STANG, ZIEHL, YOUNG, JONES
& WEINTRAUB P.C.
Laura Davis Jones (Bar No. 2436)
Sandra McLa.mb (Bar No. 4283)
919 North Market Street, 16th Floor
P.O. Box 8705 ,
Wilmington, Delaware 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 Z
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 277-6910 '
Facsimile: (310) 201-0760
Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Debtors
4z1zsn0su>ocs_¤12;1 1 1254.1 2 “

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 90

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 90

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 2 of 2