CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (WVIR) - Both sides of a multimillion dollar federal defamation lawsuit are discussing what evidence they don't want a jury to see.

The clock is ticking for those involved in litigation over a now retracted Rolling Stone article about the rape of a University of Virginia student.

The 10-day trial is scheduled to start October 17 and both sides filed a slew of motions arguing the other side can't use certain pieces of evidence because it could be prejudicial to their client.

Lawyers for UVA Associate Dean Nicole Eramo filed four motions. Eramo is suing Rolling Stone, its publisher, and the author of the article for $7.5 million.

Rolling Stone’s defense team filed 12 motions.

The defendants want to bar key people in the article from testifying. They also want to exclude a Charlottesville police investigation into the rape and a Columbia Journalism School review of the article's journalistic failures.

“It seems clear that Rolling Stone doesn't want to make this a journalistic malpractice case. If they think it's a journalism malpractice case, the jury is going to probably be harsh toward Rolling Stone because Rolling Stone really didn't do a good job,” said Lloyd Snook, NBC29 legal analyst.

Among other requests, Eramo would like to keep two letters quiet including one from the National Organization for Women that criticized her lawsuit.

Both sides will argue the motions at a hearing, which has not been set yet. The judge will make the final decision about what the jury will and will not hear as evidence.