The court rejected the parties' proposed modifications to the scheduling order and entered its own amended scheduling order. "[The parties'] proposed scheduling order is the most complicated ever seen around these parts. It boggles the mind; it makes the head swim. Furthermore, it contains language which is foreign to any order issued by this Court, past or present. . . . Examples include: 'motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness' (not nearly definite enough); 'joint pretrial order' (deleted from our local rules more than ten years ago); 'motions in limine' (not favored in this Court and rarely, if ever, granted)."
Effingo Wireless, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc., et. al., 5-11-cv-00649 (TXWD May 15, 2012, Order) (Hudspeth, J.)