United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
E. MARTIN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion in
Limine [DE 39], filed October 9, 2019. No. response has been
filed and the time to do so has passed.
motion in limine will be granted “only when evidence is
clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.”
Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T Techs., Inc., 831
F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also Dartey v.
Ford Motor Co., 104 F.Supp.2d 1017, 1020 (N.D. Ind.
2000). Most evidentiary rulings will be resolved at trial in
context, and this “ruling is subject to change when the
case unfolds.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S.
38, 41-42 (1984). The Court considers each request in turn.
Mere Accident Defense
requests that the Court exclude any argument, testimony, or
evidence that the occurrence in question was a “simple
accident” or “mere accident.” However, all
of the cases he cites deal with jury instructions used in
state court cases. Baptist v. Ford Motor Co., No. 13
C 8974, 2018 WL 1519153, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2018)
(“a federal court sitting in diversity must instruct a
jury on the proper elements of a cause of action under the
appropriate state substantive law, but the court is not
required to follow state ‘pattern'
instructions”) (citing Platis v. Stockwell,
630 F.2d 1202, 1207 (7th Cir. 1980)). Plaintiff may raise any
concerns with jury instructions at the appropriate time, but
it is not apparent from the instant Motion what type of
evidence or testimony Plaintiff seeks to have excluded from
trial. Plaintiff is assured that Defendant will be barred
from introducing evidence if its probative value is
outweighed by the danger of prejudice. Fed.R.Evid. 401.
requests that any testimony, evidence, or argument regarding
Plaintiff's past charges or convictions of crimes be
excluded, absent a pre-trial showing of admissibility. The
Court notes that Plaintiff refers only to the Indiana Rules
of Evidence, which are not operable in this Federal Court,
but agrees that evidence of prior criminal history or prior
bad acts is generally excluded. See Fed. R. Evid.
Mitigation of Damages
requests that Defendant be precluded from arguing that
Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages because Defendant
has not produced expert testimony that Plaintiff's
failure to mitigate was the cause of specific and increased
injury. Defendant has made no objection to this request, and
it is therefore granted.
requests that the Court bar Defendant from presenting any
non-party defense. The Court agrees that no non-party defense
has been identified in Defendant's answer or otherwise
raised, and Defendant is therefore precluded from presenting
as a defense that another party is at fault.
moves for an order barring evidence of surveillance video,
photographs, or statements of Plaintiff since none were
disclosed in the course of discovery. Undisclosed information
and witnesses will not be permitted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1)
(“If a party fails to provide information or identify a
witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not
allowed to use that information or witness to supply ...