ORDER

BRIAN S. MILLER, District Judge.

Plaintiff's first motion in limine [Doc. No. 51] is granted in part and denied in part as follows. Defendants are precluded from introducing evidence regarding plaintiff's prior felonies unless plaintiff opens the door. All remaining requests are denied without prejudice because this is the type of evidence that must be viewed in the context of the trial to determine whether it is relevant.

Plaintiff's second motion in limine [Doc. No. 52 ] is granted in part and denied in part as follows. Defendants are precluded from presenting evidence that plaintiff has received insurance, social security benefits or other recoveries from other sources unless plaintiff opens the door. All remaining requests are denied without prejudice because this is the type of evidence that must be viewed in the context of the trial to determine whether it is relevant.

Plaintiff's third motion in limine [Doc. No. 56] is denied without prejudice because this is the type of evidence that must be viewed in the context of the trial to determine whether it is relevant.

Plaintiff's fourth motion in limine [Doc. No. 78] is granted and the independent medical examination reports of February 18, 2011, and January 12, 2012, are inadmissible unless they are properly authenticated.

Defendant's motion in limine [Doc. No. 77] does not request a ruling but is intended to place plaintiff on notice that all of the issues raised therein should be taken up out of the hearing of the jury. For this reason, a ruling on the topics raised in the motion are held in abeyance until they are raised at trial.