United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
OPINION AND ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN CHIEF JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Defendants', Tyler
Barrientes, Brandon Chordus, Erick Kiern, Chris Moriarity,
Ryan Morrison, Elizabeth Roehm, and Richard Williams, Motion
in Limine [ECF No. 162], and the Plaintiff's, Harold
Bruce Sheehan, II, Motion in Limine [ECF No. 165].
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, at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2014) (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted).
Order, the Court does not make a final determination as to
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
Defendants' Motion in Limine
Defendants' Motion in Limine paragraph 1:
Defendants request that the Plaintiff should be prohibited
from making any “Golden Rule” appeal to the jury,
that is, a request that the jurors put themselves in the
Plaintiff's shoes and ask themselves what they would have
done in a certain situation. GRANTED. (No
Defendants' Motion in Limine paragraph 2:
The Plaintiff and the Defendants' lay witnesses should be
barred from making any references to any statements by
physicians regarding medical diagnosis or medical causation;
GRANTED. (No objection).
Defendants' Motion in Limine paragraph 3:
The Plaintiff should be barred from referencing the
Defendants' Motion in Limine or any other ruling;