Courtroom dialogue on motions in limine and joinder filing without substantive details

10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 H3VOGIU1 Dershowitz that we would then believe, in light of your ruling, should be redacted. But until we have any rulings from your Honor restricting the case, it's our position that all -- THE COURT: But you don't have an edited version of the intervention motion that you would like me to consider. 7) MR. CASSELL: We would propose one once we get rulings from your Honor on the motions in limine. = THE COURT: By the way, just parenthetically, folks, these motions in limine are good fun, and we're all having a nice time, but they're not binding. I mean by that, I'm expressing my view, or I will, I hope, some day express my view on these issues, but the trial may turn in a different direction and, you know, who knows. Okay. r, MR. CASSELL: We understand. And one of the reasons we have not proposed a redacted joinder motion, that showed up in a reply brief from the defendant, we didn't move to file a surreply with a possible motion. We think the best way to proceed, and we're happy to get guidance from your Honor, but once we have rulings from you on what's in the case and what's out, then we might go through the joinder motion. But where we're sitting today, the joinder motion goes in in its entirety. But what does not come in is then, all right, that's a legal pleading. Gee, I wonder what happened. Judge Marra made a ruling, we don't need to get into the details of that ruling. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011342