Filed: Dec. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER THERESA L. SPRINGMANN , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's, Speedway, LLC, Motion in Limine [ECF No. 27], filed on November 27, 2018. Federal Rule of Evidence 104 mandates that the Court decide any preliminary question regarding the admissibility of evidence. Motions in Limine to exclude evidence prior to trial are subject to a rigorous standard of review by the trial court. Courts may bar evidence in limine "only when evidence is cl
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER THERESA L. SPRINGMANN , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's, Speedway, LLC, Motion in Limine [ECF No. 27], filed on November 27, 2018. Federal Rule of Evidence 104 mandates that the Court decide any preliminary question regarding the admissibility of evidence. Motions in Limine to exclude evidence prior to trial are subject to a rigorous standard of review by the trial court. Courts may bar evidence in limine "only when evidence is cle..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's, Speedway, LLC, Motion in Limine [ECF No. 27], filed on November 27, 2018.
Federal Rule of Evidence 104 mandates that the Court decide any preliminary question regarding the admissibility of evidence. Motions in Limine to exclude evidence prior to trial are subject to a rigorous standard of review by the trial court. Courts may bar evidence in limine "only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." Dartey v. Ford Motor Co., 104 F.Supp.2d 1017, 1020 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (quoting Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Techs., 831 F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993)). If evidence does not meet this standard, "evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy, and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context." Id. (quoting Hawthorne, 831 F. Supp. at 1400). Often, the "better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence as they arise, presenting the issues in a specific context, rather than excluding broad categories of evidence prior to trial." United States v. Phillips, No. 1:12-CR-872, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79916 *5-6 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2014) (internal quotations omitted).
A court's rulings in limine are preliminary in nature and subject to change. In this Order the Court is not making final determination on the admissibility of evidence. The Court reserves the right to change these rulings during the trial should the Court find that the evidence or arguments at trial justify such change.
The Defendant filed the instant Motion in Limine seeking to exclude, "Any testimony or opinion that when plaintiff reported the incident to representatives of Speeedway, they were unconcerned, uncooperative or uncaring." (Mot. in Lim., at 1.) On December 3, 2018, during the Final Pre-Trial Conference [ECF No. 28], the Plaintiffs noted that they had no objection to the Defendant's Motion.
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Defendant's Motion in Limine [ECF No. 27].
SO ORDERED.
