Any thoughts on whether this is likely to be effective, or to annoy the judge? (Or should I assume that the lawyer properly estimated the preferences of the particular judge before whom he was appearing?)
I. DÉJÀ VU
When I curled up in my cozy lounger two weeks ago to enjoy yet another defense motion in the series, this most recent page turner instantly stirs in my mind the astute words of a great American scholar: “It’s déjà vu all over again.” [FN: Yogi Berra.] Though masquerading into the Clerk’s Office donning a clever disguise, we encounter an identical defense motion that re-introduces itself to us with an alias. This creature, with a few text substitutions for camouflage, is identical to “Defendants[‘] … Motion in Limine” and brief of April 22, 2005. These two defendants, disappointed by the Court’s decision to defer resolution of all motions in limine until the start of trial in February 2006, re-file their Motion with the Clerk with a new name and citing a different court rule to rouse an earlier decision.
It’s from a brief I happened to come across, which was filed four years ago — I have nothing at all to do with the case or with the lawyers.