Motions in Limine — Defendant's Motions

• Publication year: 1995
• Pages: 10

Motions in Limine — Defendant's Motions Vol. 8 No. 9 Pg. 10 Utah Bar Journal November, 1995

P. Keith Nelson, J.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Definition

1. "In limine. On or at the threshold; at the very beginning; preliminarily. Any motion, whether used before or during trial, by which exclusion is sought of anticipated prejudicial evidence." Black's Law Dictionary 787 (6th ed. 1990).

2. "Motion in limine. A pretrial motion requesting court to prohibit opposing counsel from referring to or offering evidence on matters so highly prejudicial to moving party that curative instructions cannot prevent predispositional effect on jury." Black's Law Dictionary, supra, at 1013-14.

3. "A motion in limine, in plain English, is a pretrial motion to exclude certain evidence." Reiser v. Lohner, 641 P.2d 93, 100 (Utah 1982) (Stewart, J., dissenting).

4. "A motion in limine, sometimes termed a motion to bar or a motion to exclude, is analogous to a pretrial motion to suppress in a criminal case. The primary difference is that the motion to suppress is not based on the rules of evidence but upon a defendant's constitutional rights." James E. Sullivan & Rose Marie Lipinski, Recent Trends in Motions in Limine, 78 111. B. J. 244, 244 (May 1990).

B. Scope & Purpose

1. A motion in limine is used to exclude evidence which could be objected to at trial, that is irrelevant or unduly prejudicial before it is referred to in the presence of the jury. 3 Witkin Evidence § 2011, at 1969 (3d ed. 1986). The "[p]urpose of such motion is to avoid injection into trial of matters which are irrelevant, inadmissible, and prejudicial and granting motion is not a ruling on evidence and, where properly drawn, granting motion cannot be error." Black's Law Dictionary, supra, at 1013-14.

2. Three uses of motions in limine are: first, the motion may completely bar certain evidence; second, it may limit the consideration of specific evidence to particular purposes or parties; third, it may prohibit particular witnesses from testifying at trial. Sullivan & Lipinski, supra, at 244.

3. "Although the motion in limine is particularly well suited to evidence with potentially inflammatory characteristics outweighing whatever materiality it may possess, the motion may be used to obtain an advance ruling on any ground regarding matters at trial." Henry R. Sarpy, Handling Sympathy in Jury Trials, 455 PLI/Lit 37 (Mar.-Apr. 1993).

For example, a motion in limine could "seek an advance ruling that certain evidence is admissible." Robert J. Smith, A Practical Guide to Motions in Limine: How to Keep the Cat in the Bag, 23 SPG Brief 49 (Spring 1994). Motions in limine have also been used to "address claims and defenses as well." Robert G. Johnston & Thomas P. Higgins, Motions in Limine: Use and Consequences in Illinois, 26 John Marshall L. Rev. 305, 308 (1993). In Dalley v. Utah Valley Regional Medical Center, 791 P.2d 193, 195 (Utah 1990), the "plaintiff filed a motion in limine seeking the trial court's determination that the injury was of a type that does not occur in the absence of negligence and that expert testimony was therefore unnecessary." After hearing all of the motions, the trial court granted defendant's motions for summary judgment because plaintiff failed to produce expert testimony sufficient to establish foundation for res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Id . The Utah Supreme Court reversed because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur raised material issues of fact inappropriate for summary judgment. Id.

Additionally, in Utah Department of Transportation v. 6200 South Assoc, 872 P.2d 462, 469 (Utah App. 1994) cert, denied, 890 P.2d 1034 (Utah 1994), "[t]he trial court ruled at the hearing on the motion in limine that the property's value before condemnation was to be determined by assuming the presence of the 1-215 diamond interchange . . .".

Finally, in Prowswood, Inc. v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 676 P.2d 952, 953 (Utah 1984), pursuant to defendant's motion in limine, the court dismissed plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation.

Some courts, however, may be reluctant to grant a motion in limine if it is a substitute for summary judgment. In Bradley v. Pittsburgh Board of Education, 913 F.2d 1064, 1069-70 (3d Cir. 1990), the court cautioned that extensive motions in limine do not allow the same procedural safeguards provided by FRCP 56.

C. Authority

1. The authority in Utah state courts for granting motions and orders in limine lies within the courts' inherent powers. Support for this inherent power includes:

a. "An application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief sought." Utah R. Civ. P. 7(b) (1).

b. "In any action, the court in its discretion or upon motion of a party, may direct the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties to appear before it for a conference or conferences before trial for such purposes as: (1) expediting the disposition of the action; (2) establishing early and continuing control so that the case will not be protracted for lack of management; (3) discouraging wasteful pretrial activities; (4) improving the...