On Sept. 1, 2020, an entirely new rule, Rule 4:25-8, went into effect as part of recent amendments to the Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey. This rule defines motions in limine and codifies certain best practices with respect to the filing of such motions. Rule 4:25-8 is significant because it prohibits filing motions in limine that may have a dispositive impact on the case, including "application[s] to bar an expert's testimony in a matter in which such testimony is required as a matter of law to sustain party's burden of proof." This is an important development in New Jersey law because it essentially requires dispositive motions to exclude expert testimony to be included as part of a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 4:46. This practice was heretofore not fully understood by practitioners and is significant because it allows for detailed briefing and consideration of such motions and eliminates the potential for "eleventh hour" exclusion of expert witnesses on the eve of trial.

The need for a specific rule governing motions in limine and their intended purpose and limited scope became clear in the wake of Cho v. Trinitas Regional Medical Center, 443 N.J. Super. 461 (App. Div. 2015), certif. den., 224 N.J. 529 (2016). In Cho, the defendant filed a motion in limine the day before jury selection, seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' wrongful death claim on the grounds that their proofs of economic loss were "too speculative to present to a jury," to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages with prejudice, and to preclude the plaintiffs from presenting evidence regarding the decedent's pain and suffering because a survival claim was not pled. The defendant argued that if this relief were granted, no viable claim remained and the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs had one day to file an opposition to this motion. They argued that their damages consisted of $10,000 in funeral expenses and anticipated financial support from the decedent, and maintained that the complaint in fact asserted a survival claim. After oral argument, the trial court granted the defendant's motion, while noting on the record that it was in substance a motion for summary judgment.