ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

The Court's rulings on the motions in limine filed in the above-referenced case are as follows:

I. Plaintiff United States

Motion in Limine #1 — GRANTED so long as there is a properly executed Fed.R.Evid. 902(11) certification for the associated document(s).

Motion in Limine #2 — GRANTED.

Motion in Limine #3 — GRANTED (See United v. Litos and United States v. Haischer cited by Plaintiff in its brief).

Motion in Limine #4 — GRANTED (the Court will conditionally admit the co-conspirators' statements before all foundational elements are established. Defendants will be precluded from introducing their own statements unless they testify).

Motion in Limine #5 — GRANTED (as to all parties).

Motion in Limine #6 — GRANTED.

Motion in Limine #7 — GRANTED.

II. Defendant Peter Kuzmenko (with joinder from Defendants Edward Shevtsov, Aaron New and Nadia Kuzmenko) Motion in Limine #1 —

(a) GRANTED — Mr. Kuzmenko will not be restrained in any way at trial.

(b) DENIED (but redactions will be required and a limiting instruction will be given if timely requested).

(c) DENIED (evidence of Mr. Kuzmenko's immigration status at the time of the alleged false statement that he was a United States citizen is relevant and, therefore, admissible).

(d) GRANTED without prejudice to the United States to renew request if Mr. Kuzmenko testifies.

Motion in Limine #2 — DENIED (the Court will conduct voir dire). Motion in Limine #3 — GRANTED.

III. Defendant Nadia Kuzmenko (with joinder from Defendants Edward Shevtsov, Aaron New, and Peter Kuzmenko) Motion in Limine #1 — DENIED.

Motion in Limine #2 — DENIED (but redactions will be required and a limiting instruction will be given if timely requested).

Motion in Limine #3 — DENIED without prejudice to renew if requested information is not provided.

Motion in Limine #4 — GRANTED (proposed 404(b) evidence against Defendants Rachel Siders, Peter Kuzmenko and Vera Kuzmenko will be excluded. The probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. Fed.R.Evid. 403.

Motion in Limine #5 — DENIED (request is overbriad).

Motion in Limine #6 — DENIED.

Motion in Limine #7 — DENIED (Court will give explanatory instruction to jury if timely requested).

All parties will be permitted to present arguments in favor of and/or in opposition to the Court's Order herein on Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.