Filed: May 29, 2013
Latest Update: May 29, 2013
Summary: ORDER PHILIP M. PRO, District Judge. Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff's Omnibus Motions in Limine (Doc. #91). Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. #105) on March 11, 2013. Motions in Limine are not a vehicle to micro-manage the conduct of a trial months before the trial begins. Plaintiffs Omnibus Motion in Limine consists of thirty-four sub-parts. Several of the sub-parts of Plaintiffs' Motion are not amenable to a pretrial in limine ruling, but are more app
Summary: ORDER PHILIP M. PRO, District Judge. Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff's Omnibus Motions in Limine (Doc. #91). Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. #105) on March 11, 2013. Motions in Limine are not a vehicle to micro-manage the conduct of a trial months before the trial begins. Plaintiffs Omnibus Motion in Limine consists of thirty-four sub-parts. Several of the sub-parts of Plaintiffs' Motion are not amenable to a pretrial in limine ruling, but are more appr..
More
ORDER
PHILIP M. PRO, District Judge.
Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff's Omnibus Motions in Limine (Doc. #91). Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. #105) on March 11, 2013.
Motions in Limine are not a vehicle to micro-manage the conduct of a trial months before the trial begins. Plaintiffs Omnibus Motion in Limine consists of thirty-four sub-parts. Several of the sub-parts of Plaintiffs' Motion are not amenable to a pretrial in limine ruling, but are more appropriately reserved for objection at the time of trial in the context of the presentation of the evidence or argument at issue. Hence,
IT IS ORDERED that the following Omnibus Motion in Limine sub-Parts are DENIED without prejudice to renew the same at the time of trial: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 18, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, and 34.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following Motion in Limine subparts are DENIED: 4, 7, 10, 11, 21, 27, and 30.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following Motion in Limine subparts are GRANTED: 8, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20 (except that expert witnesses shall not be excluded from the courtroom during trial unless individualized good cause is shown to warrant such exclusion), 23, 25, 31, 32, and 33.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following Motion in Limine subparts relating to voire dire are DENIED without prejudice to renew the same in connection with the submission of proposed voir dire questions prior to trial: 13, 16 and 17.
