ORDER

JOHN J. O'SULLIVAN, Magistrate Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Consolidated Motion in Limine and Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (DE# 36, 9/14/16). This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Federico A. Moreno, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (DE# 42, 9/16). Having reviewed the motion, the defendants's response (DE# 47, 9/28/16), and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff's Consolidated Motion in Limine and Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (DE# 36, 9/14/16) is DENIED.

An order is not necessary to preclude the parties from referencing matters during opening and closing arguments that are ruled inadmissible or are not admitted in the trial. The motion in limine for a blanket ruling to exclude any reference to matters outside the evidence at trial is DENIED.

The plaintiff also seeks to exclude admission of the transcript of Jose DeFalla's deposition on July 12, 2016 on the grounds that it includes irrelevant and defamatory remarks regarding Mr. DeFalla's ex-wife, Gertha Girbau. Additionally, the plaintiff seeks to exclude certain exhibits. The defendant argues that none of the evidence should be excluded because the evidence goes to the heart of the issues and is probative of the plaintiff's and Ms. Girbau's knowledge, plan, intent and motive regarding the use of the marks by the plaintiff and the defendant. "When [evidentiary] rulings are made at the time the exhibit is offered in evidence, the trial judge has the benefit of full development of all relevant facts constituting the introductory predicate for admission of the item or statement." Roberts v. Charter Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 105 F.R.D. 492, 493 (S.D. Fla. 1985)(denying motion in limine without prejudice to reassert at the time of trial if circumstances warrant it).

The evidence that the plaintiff seeks to exclude may be relevant to the defendant's defenses regarding the use of the marks. It is premature to exclude it at this time. At trial, the Court will be in a better position to determine whether the evidence is relevant, admissible or whether it serves as rebuttal evidence. Additionally, the Court will be in a better position to determine whether prejudice, if any, to the plaintiff outweighs the probative value of the evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion in limine is DENIED without prejudice to renew at trial if necessary.

DONE AND ORDERED.