THIRD ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

C.J. WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Supplement to First Motion in Limine. (Doc. 47). Although defendant has not had a full opportunity to resist the motion as of the filing of this Order, the Court finds that the circumstances warrant issuing an order without further delay. See LR 7(e) ("[I]f circumstances . . . warrant, the court may elect to rule on a motion without waiting for a resistance or response."). For the following reasons, plaintiffs' motion is granted to the extent plaintiffs allege the evidence is inadmissible to prove plaintiff Travis Quinn acted in conformity with a certain character trait on the date of accident at issue. FED. R. EVID. 404(a)(1).

Plaintiffs identify six separate driving-related incidents that are described in Exhibit E, which plaintiffs now seek to exclude. In support, plaintiffs state:

Each of the items plaintiffs now seek to exclude addresses minor traffic-related damage that was caused while plaintiff was operating a vehicle. Because defendant intends to advance a theory of comparative fault based on Travis Quinn's alleged negligence in operating the tractor involved in the accident at issue, defendant may not properly introduce character evidence to show that Travis Quinn negligently operated the tractor on the specific occasion at issue. As such, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion based on Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1). Should defendant wish to introduce the subject incidents as non-character evidence, defendant must first seek leave of Court to do so.

Plaintiffs further state that the incidents at issue are inadmissible because they contain hearsay. Although the incidents at issue may be inadmissible hearsay, the Court is not prepared to rule as such in the absence of defendant having had an opportunity to be heard on the issue and argue that any number of the incidents fall under one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule.

IT IS SO ORDERED.