Legal Opinion
Roth v. Morgan
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided December 23, 2005No. 05-60303Unpublished
1Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM: *
We affirm the judgment of the district court for the following reasons:
1. The district court made clear that a response to Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude Dr. Byrd’s deposition was due by June 9, 2004. Plaintiff failed to file a response to Defendants’ Motion in limine with the clerk of court. Counsel’s letter requesting a conference was not sufficient. “No abuse of discretion is demonstrated when the district court is shown no valid reason for [the plaintiffs] failure to respond to the subject motion.” Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 356 (5th…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
- Nissho-Iwai American Corporation v. R. Sukarno Kline, Individually and D/B/A Frankenburg Import-Export Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1988
- Martin v. John W. Stone Oil Distributor, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
- McCaffrey v. PuckettMississippi Supreme Court · 2001
- Shirley v. McCraneyDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2001