Kinne et al v. Rocky Mountain EMS, Inc.
ORDER denying without prejudice 139 Motion in Limine. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/25/2014.(alowe)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Robert E. Blackburn, Judge
Civil Case No.12-cv-02710-REB-CBS
KAREN KINNE, TIM DILL, ABRAHAM BACA, individually and on behalf of others
ROCKY MOUNTAIN EMS, INC., D/B/A ROCKY MOUNTAIN MOBILE MEDICAL, AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION IN LIMINE
This matter is before me on the Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motions In Limine [#139]1
filed November 21, 2014. I deny the motion without prejudice.
The plaintiffs assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado
Wage Act. The claims are based on the time during which the plaintiffs were employed
by the defendants. In their motion, the plaintiffs ask the court to exclude from evidence
any evidence concerning the disciplinary records of the plaintiffs while they were
employed by the defendants, except as that evidence may relate to discipline for failure
to comply with any record keeping requirements or tardiness. The plaintiffs contend
such evidence should be excluded under FED. R. EVID. 402, 403, and 404. In addition,
the plaintiffs ask the court to exclude from evidence any evidence or argument
“[#139]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
concerning the way in which the opt-in process proceeded in this case, including the
response rate or the number of opt-in plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contend such evidence
should be excluded under FED. R. EVID. 402 and 403.
The issues raised in the motion of the plaintiffs are evidence driven and cannot
be resolved until evidence is presented at trial. Of course, no trial evidence yet has
been presented, and the evidentiary context of this case remains uncertain. The
relevance of the evidence in question, its admissibility or inadmissibility as character
evidence, and its potential to cause unfair prejudice or confusion, to mislead the jury, or
to waste time, cannot be determined until the evidentiary landscape becomes clear at
REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.E.1 states clearly: “Motions in limine are strongly
discouraged, a fortiori, when the motion is evidence driven and cannot be resolved until
evidence is presented at trial.” The motion of the plaintiffs is the type of motion
specifically discouraged in this practice standard.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motions In Limine
[#139] filed November 21, 2014, is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated November 25, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?