Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Zander v. Orlich

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

July 12, 2017

REBECCA ZANDER, Plaintiff,
v.
SAMUEL ORLICH, JR., Defendant

          OPINION AND ORDER

          PAUL R. CHERRY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the Motion In Limine [DE 91] filed with the Court June 26, 2017, by Plaintiff Rebecca Zander, by counsel, and the Motion In Limine [DE 92] filed with the Court June 27, 2017, by Defendant Samuel Orlich, Jr., by counsel. The Court has also considered the Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion In Limine [DE 98] filed July 7, 2017. No replies were permitted.

         In determination of these issues the Court FINDS, ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES:

         Federal Rule of Evidence 104 provides, in part: “Preliminary questions concerning . . . admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the Court.” Motions in Limine to exclude evidence prior to trial are subject to a rigorous standard of review. 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 Tech., 831 F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993)). If evidence does not meet this standard, “the evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevance and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.” Id. (quoting Hawthorne, 831 F.Supp. at 1400).

         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 any 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.

         PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE

         1.a. Evidence or argument regarding settlement discussions or attempts. RULING: The Plaintiff's Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant Orlich has no objection.

         1.b. Evidence or argument about “bad acts” by Plaintiff Zander..

         RULING: The Plaintiff's Motion In Limine is PARTIALLY GRANTED and PARTIALLY DENIED. It is granted as to the broad category of “bad acts” in general. It is denied to the extent of Plaintiff Zander's reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness (F.R.E. 608 (a) and (b)). It is denied to the extent Plaintiff Zander may, during presentation of her witnesses and evidence, “open the door” to the issue.

         1.c. Evidence or argument that Plaintiff Zander's counsel is attempting trickery or the like.

         RULING: The Plaintiff's Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant Orlich has no objection.

         1.d. Evidence or argument about Plaintiff Zander's attorney contract, relationship, or fee arrangement.

         RULING: The Plaintiff's Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant Orlich has no objection.

         1.e. Evidence or argument about Plaintiff Zander's income tax consequences should ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.