JICARILLA v. USA

Filing 335

ORDER denying 296 Motion in Limine and denying 301 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Francis M. Allegra. (si) Copy to parties.

In The United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 02-25L
(Filed: September 12, 2011)
__________
JICARILLA APACHE NATION,
formerly JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
___________

ORDER
___________
On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of defendant’s
proffered expert, Dr. William G. Hamm. On June 23, 2011, defendant filed its opposition to this
motion. On that same date, defendant filed its own motion in limine to exclude damages
calculations that post-date September 30, 1992. On July 5, 2011, plaintiff filed its reply to its
motion in limine. On July 11, 2011, plaintiff filed its opposition to defendant’s motion in limine.
On July 18, 2011, defendant filed its reply to its motion in limine.
Trial judges have considerable discretion in deciding when and how to resolve motions in
limine. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002); Kelly v.
City of Oakland, 198 F.3d 779, 786 (9th Cir. 1999). That discretion is particularly broad when
the motion raises an evidentiary question. See Bowman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 350
F.3d 537, 547 (6th Cir. 2003). In applying this discretion, a court should not exclude evidence
before trial unless it is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. See Kiswani v. Phoenix Sec.
Agency, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 554, 557 (N.D. Ill. 2008); River v. Stover, 2010 WL 3835543 (D. Ariz.
Feb. 23, 2010).

The court concludes that Dr. Hamm’s analysis, expert report and testimony may “assist
the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” and should not be
excluded. Fed.R. Evid. 702. Accordingly, it denies plaintiff’s motion in limine. The court also
denies defendant’s motion in limine. In phasing the trial of this case, it has always been the
court’s intention to resolve all liability and damages issues associated with a given phase.
Whether the trial of this first phase of the case will result in the certification of a judgment under
RCFC 54(b) obviously remains to be seen. But, the court believes that plaintiff’s post-1992
damage calculations are relevant and should not be excluded based upon the potential validity vel
non of its underlying legal theory.
Accordingly, both motions in limine – that filed by plaintiff and that filed by defendant –
are hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Francis M. Allegra
Francis M. Allegra
Judge

-2-