New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Propriety of Motion in Limine to Admit, Rather Than Exclude, Evidence

Download PDF

Bond Pharmacy, Inc. v. AnazaoHealth Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103373 (S.D. Miss. July 25, 2012):

Anazao's motion in limine states that the letters in question contain information it learned from CMS officials and through CMS documents. *** Anazao requests a pretrial ruling from the Court on the admissibility of that information, namely, certain "statements by CMS employees to Anazao, the e-mails by the CMS employees and the question and answer by CMS on its official website." *** Otherwise, Anazao says, it will have to subpoena CMS and move to extend the discovery deadlines and trial date. *** Anazao has attached the evidence it seeks to be admitted.

In response, AIS argues that the motion is improper because motions in limine can be used only to exclude prejudicial and inadmissible evidence.... "Defendant's motion is simply not a proper motion in limine, because it is not the role of the court to advise counsel in advance of trial whether certain matter will be admitted in evidence." ***

It is well-established that motions in limine may be used to secure a pretrial ruling that certain evidence is admissible. *** "Revised Rule [of Evidence] 103 permits definitive motions in limine whether they are seeking a ruling either 'admitting or excluding' the evidence. This validates the use of the 'permissive' motion in limine; that is, one that seeks permission to admit evidence rather than to exclude it." Wright & Graham, 21 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5037.15 (2d ed. 2005). Other treatises concur. See 1 McCormick on Evidence § 52, at 255 (6th ed. 2006) ("The proponent of evidence can file an in limine motion to obtain an advance ruling that an item of evidence is admissible."); Weissenberger's Federal Evidence § 103.4, at 45 & n.42 (7th ed. 2011) ("Such motions may be made by either the party seeking admission or the party seeking exclusion, and are usually (although not always) made before trial.").

A number of courts have arrived at the same conclusion. See United States v. Williams, 939 F.2d 721, 723-24 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming district court's grant of motion in limine to admit evidence) (collecting cases); United States v. Hawpetoss, 478 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2007) (same); Walden v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 126 F.3d 506, 517 (3d Cir. 1997) ("When a definitive evidentiary ruling is made pretrial, there is surely no point to taking the time at trial to make an objection if the in limine ruling admitted certain evidence, or to make an offer of proof if the in limine ruling excluded it."); Ellerton v. Ellerton, 745 F. Supp. 2d 458, 460 (D. Vt. 2010) ("A motion in limine generally seeks a pre-trial ruling regarding the inclusion or exclusion of evidence based upon its admissibility."); United States v. Taylor, 328 F. Supp. 2d 915, 918 (N.D. Ind. 2004) ("Thomas uses a Motion in Limine in an effort to seek a ruling on, not the exclusion of evidence, but rather the inclusion of Williams' proffer statements."); see also United States v. Jerra, No. 06-50081, 2007 WL 580099, *2 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2007) (affirming denial of motion in limine to admit evidence on merits, not because motions in limine cannot be used to admit evidence); United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293, 1303 (11th Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Masquelier, 210 F.3d 756, 757 (7th Cir. 2000) (same).

AIS has not cited any authority to the contrary. The sources it has advanced speak to the most common role of a motion in limine: excluding prejudicial or inadmissible evidence. See O'Rear v. Fruehauf Corp., 554 F.2d 1304, 1306 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1977); Caldwell v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 3:10-cv-651, 2012 WL 1712377, *1 (S.D. Miss. May 14, 2012); Maggette v. BL Development Corp., No. 2:07-cv-181, 2011 WL 2134578 (N.D. Miss. May 27, 2011); Black's Law Dictionary 1038 (8th ed. 2004). None of these authorities bar a party from seeking to admit evidence before trial.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice