Martensen v. Koch

Filing 338

ORDER denying without prejudice 224 Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendant William Koch from Referring to District Attorney's Decision Not to Prosecute Defendant for the Crime of False Imprisonment. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/21/2015.(alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02411-REB-CBS
KIRBY MARTENSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM KOCH, and
DOES 1-25,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF KIRBY MARTENSEN’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT WILLIAM KOCH
FROM REFERRING TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S DECISION NOT TO
PROSECUTE DEFENDANT FOR THE CRIME OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Blackburn, J.
The matter is before me is Plaintiff Kirby Martensen’s Motion In Limine To
Preclude Defendant William Koch form Referring to District Attorney’s Decision
Not To Prosecute Defendant for the Crime of False Imprisonment [#224],1 filed
August 29, 2014. I deny the motion, but without prejudice.
Plaintiff argues that defendant should be precluded from alluding to or
introducing evidence of the Gunnison County District Attorney’s Office decision not to
bring criminal false imprisonment charges against defendant. Plaintiff claims such
evidence is irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, and that it constitutes hearsay. He thus
requests that it be excluded in limine pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403, and 802.

1

“[#224]” 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.

The issues plaintiff raises in his motion in limine are evidence-driven and cannot
be resolved until evidence is presented at trial.2 Obviously, no trial evidence has been
presented, and the manner and context in which this evidence may be brought forward
therefore remains uncertain. The relevance of the evidence in question; its potential to
cause unfair prejudice or confusion, to mislead the jury, or to waste time; and whether it
will be offered for a hearsay purpose vel non, are matters that cannot be determined
until the evidentiary landscape becomes clear at trial.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Kirby Martensen’s Motion In
Limine To Preclude Defendant William Koch form Referring to District Attorney’s
Decision Not To Prosecute Defendant for the Crime of False Imprisonment [#224],
filed August 29, 2014, is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated January 21, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2
For these very reasons I specifically discourage the filing of such motions in my Civil Practice
Standards. See REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.E.1.

2