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.
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, and will give Defendant Rachel Siders's proposed preliminary instruction. Defendants will be precluded from introducing their own statements unless they testify).
Motion in Limine #5 — DENIED as overbroad, without prejudice to any party raising a relevance objection at trial.
Motion in Limine #6 — GRANTED.
Motion in Limine #7 — GRANTED with the understanding that this ruling does not prohibit questioning of witnesses about whether they were charged.
Motion in Limine #8 — DENIED.
Motion in Limine #9 — GRANTED.
II. Defendant Rachel Siders
Motion in Limine #1 — GRANTED (proposed 404(b) evidence against Defendant Rachel Siders 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 #2 — DENIED.
Motion in Limine #3 — DENIED.
Motion in Limine #4 — DENIED (improper motion in limine).
Motion in Limine #5 — DENIED (the Court will conduct voir dire).
Motion in Limine #6 — DENIED (limiting instruction will be given as to Defendant Rachel Siders, who is not charged with money laundering/structuring).
Motion in Limine #7 — DENIED without prejudice (improper motion in limine; issue will be dealt with during jury instruction discussions).
Motion in Limine #8 — DENIED.
Motion in Limine #9 — DENIED.
III. Defendant Vera Kuzmenko
Motion in Limine #1 — DENIED.
Motion in Limine #2 — DENIED.
Motion in Limine #3 — DENIED (improper motion in limine).
Motion in Limine #4 — GRANTED (proposed 404(b) evidence against Defendant 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 (court will admonish witnesses when necessary).
Motion in Limine #6 — DENIED.
Motion in Limine #7 — DENIED without prejudice (improper motion in limine; issue will be dealt with during jury instruction discussions).
Motion in Limine #8 — GRANTED without prejudice as to the email, which the Court will take up at the appropriate time at trial.
Motion in Limine #9 — GRANTED (transcript is excluded).
Motion in Limine #10 — DENIED.
All parties will be permitted to present arguments in favor of and/or in opposition to the Court's order herein on Monday, November 2, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
