Litigation: Around the horn with the motion in limine
When a trial date approaches, litigators have their own checklists to keep track of pretrial preparations. As they go through the checklist, they may feel a little like a baseball manager filling out a lineup card.
May 23, 2013 at 03:15 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
When a trial date approaches, litigators have their own checklists to keep track of pretrial preparations. As they go through the checklist, they may feel a little like a baseball manager filling out a lineup card. They should always find a spot in the lineup for the motion in limine, a versatile, utility infielder on whom you can rely to keep unhelpful information from reaching a jury's attention.
The most common purpose of a motion in limine is to prevent the admission into evidence of testimony or documents that may damage a party's case, but that also may suffer from some evidentiary shortcoming. It is, as the 7th Circuit once has noted, “a request for guidance by the court regarding an evidentiary question.”
First Base. A motion in limine can affect a trial in a number of ways, some to your advantage and some that carry risk. It can narrow the disputed issues a jury will be asked to consider, both in terms of liability and damages. In that way, it can shorten the trial. It is often used to set up a motion for directed verdict. On the other hand, a motion in limine may alert the opposing party to a weakness in its case of which it might not be aware.
Second base. Motions in limine are particularly useful when a judge has held an evidentiary ruling in abeyance. For example, if the court delays ruling on an evidentiary matter to see whether the party seeking admission will lay a sufficient foundation, a motion in limine is crucial to prevent the jury from considering that evidence until the foundation has been laid.
Shortstop. Many experienced litigators use motions in limine to prevent opposing counsel from mentioning potentially damaging—and potentially inadmissible—facts in an opening statement. Once the jury hears an assertion, it is outside a litigator's control to get them not to think about it. Even a judge's instruction to disregard the matter will only cause them to think about it a second time. The best course is to prevent the bell from ringing in the first place by obtaining an order precluding mention of the disputed fact in an opening statement.
Third base. Be clear in what you hope to accomplish with your motion in limine. The best way to do this is to have a proposed order ready that includes all the relief you seek, including both the exclusion of the evidence and the consequences of violating the order. Cover all bases by explicitly stating that the excluded evidence shall not be referred to in voir dire, opening statements, witness examination, objections, closing arguments and at any other time when the jury is present. The relief for a violation can range from a mistrial, with the offending party bearing the costs, to a judicial admonishment of counsel to a simple instruction to disregard the evidence. You can also use the fact that a party violated a motion in limine to oppose that party's motion for a new trial.
Most litigators know the hotly disputed evidentiary issues as the case progresses from discovery to pretrial preparations. The potential subjects of a motion in limine will be clear long before the eve of trial. A well-prepared lawyer will know exactly where to place a motion in limine in the trial prep lineup.
When a trial date approaches, litigators have their own checklists to keep track of pretrial preparations. As they go through the checklist, they may feel a little like a baseball manager filling out a lineup card. They should always find a spot in the lineup for the motion in limine, a versatile, utility infielder on whom you can rely to keep unhelpful information from reaching a jury's attention.
The most common purpose of a motion in limine is to prevent the admission into evidence of testimony or documents that may damage a party's case, but that also may suffer from some evidentiary shortcoming. It is, as the 7th Circuit once has noted, “a request for guidance by the court regarding an evidentiary question.”
First Base. A motion in limine can affect a trial in a number of ways, some to your advantage and some that carry risk. It can narrow the disputed issues a jury will be asked to consider, both in terms of liability and damages. In that way, it can shorten the trial. It is often used to set up a motion for directed verdict. On the other hand, a motion in limine may alert the opposing party to a weakness in its case of which it might not be aware.
Second base. Motions in limine are particularly useful when a judge has held an evidentiary ruling in abeyance. For example, if the court delays ruling on an evidentiary matter to see whether the party seeking admission will lay a sufficient foundation, a motion in limine is crucial to prevent the jury from considering that evidence until the foundation has been laid.
Shortstop. Many experienced litigators use motions in limine to prevent opposing counsel from mentioning potentially damaging—and potentially inadmissible—facts in an opening statement. Once the jury hears an assertion, it is outside a litigator's control to get them not to think about it. Even a judge's instruction to disregard the matter will only cause them to think about it a second time. The best course is to prevent the bell from ringing in the first place by obtaining an order precluding mention of the disputed fact in an opening statement.
Third base. Be clear in what you hope to accomplish with your motion in limine. The best way to do this is to have a proposed order ready that includes all the relief you seek, including both the exclusion of the evidence and the consequences of violating the order. Cover all bases by explicitly stating that the excluded evidence shall not be referred to in voir dire, opening statements, witness examination, objections, closing arguments and at any other time when the jury is present. The relief for a violation can range from a mistrial, with the offending party bearing the costs, to a judicial admonishment of counsel to a simple instruction to disregard the evidence. You can also use the fact that a party violated a motion in limine to oppose that party's motion for a new trial.
Most litigators know the hotly disputed evidentiary issues as the case progresses from discovery to pretrial preparations. The potential subjects of a motion in limine will be clear long before the eve of trial. A well-prepared lawyer will know exactly where to place a motion in limine in the trial prep lineup.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250