Not at all, it's a fair question. First, it's entered into the record because it was discussed in open court and - without reading the transcript from Monday - I believe that's what respective counsel agreed to with the judge.
As to it's relevance with respect to the MTD - there isn't any. The MTD is under advisement by the bench, so the "trial" continues on other fronts, to the extent that it can pending the decision on the MTD. In this instance, the continuation is just normal housekeeping.
When judges have a busy docket - as it appears Carter does - it's not at all unusual to give great deference to the court's (his) schedule. The court is just following it's SOP, irrespective of any pending motions. It's as simple as that.
As an aside, regardless of how a trial date is characterized as "final", it's never "final". Trial dates change from the "finalized" date all the time, both in state and federal court.
So, a less long winded answer might be that he’s proceeding as if the trial is going forward just in case the trial DOES go forward, but no decision has been made on the MTD. That way they aren’t behind should he rule against the MTD.
Is this your position? I have no idea if you’re right, since your mind seems made up no matter what happens. But I appreciate the explanation. It makes sense. Unfortunately, Orely’s argument can also make sense. It depends on who really knows the law. As usual, we’re left wondering who just thinks they know the law, and who actually does. Do you mind if I ask what your background in law is? I can’t keep track of who is who and what claims people have made. And so much for not being long winded.