name of it, but it was the plaintiff's motion, sort of omnibus

10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 H3VOGIU1 name of it, but it was the plaintiff's motion, sort of omnibus related to different acts either under 404(b) or 415. The plaintiff wanted until 15 days before trial to make whatever showing they wanted. It would make sense -- well, in defendant's 404(b) motion, there are some of those issues, as well. We certainly could argue part of that. The Court may want to defer that to the entirety of when we have whatever the supplement is to that motion yesterday. Then we also, I believe, dealt with yesterday the issue related to the Jane Doe 102 complaint. We have a competing motion on that. That's 663. It seems to me that was argued yesterday, and we don't need to repeat those arguments, which is the same argument we had yesterday. So in my view, your Honor, that leaves the bifurcated trial motion, which has been fully briefed, the Kellen and Marcinkova issue, and the police report issue. So by my count, we have those thr I also have on my calendar that our motion to preclude -- or the plaintiff's motion to preclude calling attorneys as witnesses, which is 685 and 772, and by my calendaring the reply was due yesterday. I think Ms. McCawley has a different version of that, and so frankly, I don't care whether we hear that today or some other time. So that's my accounting of what we have ripe for argument today, or shouldn't have argument today, as the case SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011392