Link below. You first have to look at Smith's motion, which gave many citations, case law, and how her response addressed none of it. She merely wrote:
Separately, to the extent the Special Counsel demands an anticipatory finalization of jury instructions prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence, the Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust
That's clearly an incompetent response, far below the standard one would expect from a seasoned judge.
She goes on to say:
The Court’s Order soliciting preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this case.
She should have stated that in the order to Smith. Looks like she is backpedaling.
Nor should it be interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the
questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression always, any party remains free to avail itself of whatever appellate options it sees fit to invoke, as permitted by law
She totally ignored Smith's indication of how the PRA is irrelevant to this case, and that her instructions contradicted the law.
She's deliberately avoiding giving Smith something he can appeal,. that's what it looks like to me.
But, a motion in limine, if not responded to, he can file a writ of mandamus to get her to apply the law, or get her off the case.