Skypoint Advisors, LLC. v. 3 Amigos Productions LLC. et al

Filing 290

ORDER denying 270 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 271 Motion in Limine; denying 277 Motion in Limine. See Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 2/15/2022. (AFC)

Case 2:18-cv-00356-JES-MRM Document 290 Filed 02/15/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID 3496

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SKYPOINT ADVISORS, LLC.,
Plaintiff/Counter
Defendant,
v.

Case No:

2:18-cv-356-JES-MRM

3 AMIGOS PRODUCTIONS LLC.,
BLACKBURNSTEELE LLC., ISSA
ZAROUI, and MARK C CRAWFORD,
Defendants/
Counterclaimants.
3 AMIGOS PRODUCTIONS LLC.,
BLACKBURNSTEELE LLC., ISSA
ZAROUI, and MARK C CRAWFORD,
Third-Party
Plaintiffs,
v.
DENIS DRENI,
Third-Party
Defendant.
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter comes before the Court on three motions in limine
filed by the parties. (Docs. ## 270, 271, 277.)
motions have been filed (Docs. ## 285, 286, 287).
resolved as set forth below.

Responses to the
The motions are

Case 2:18-cv-00356-JES-MRM Document 290 Filed 02/15/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID 3497

I.
A motion in limine is a “motion, whether made before or during
trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the
evidence is actually offered.”
38, 40 n.2 (1984).

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S.

These motions “are generally disfavored.”

Acevedo v. NCL (Bah.) Ltd., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1188, 1192 (S.D. Fla.
2017).

“Evidence is excluded upon a motion in limine only if the

evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose.” Id.

“A motion

in limine is not the proper vehicle to resolve substantive issues,
to test issues of law, or to address or narrow the issues to be
tried.”

McHale v. Crown Equip. Corp., No. 8:19-cv-707-VMC-SPF,

2021 WL 4527509, at *1, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2021) (citing LSQ
Funding Grp. v. EDS Field Servs., 879 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1337 (M.D.
Fla. 2012)).

“Nor may a party use a motion in limine to sterilize

the other party’s presentation of the case.”

Harris v. Wingo, No.

2:18-CV-17-FTM-29MRM, 2021 WL 5028201, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29,
2021) (cleaned up). Additionally, the Supreme Court has cautioned:
The ruling is subject to change when the case
unfolds, particularly if the actual testimony
differs from what was contained in the
defendant’s proffer. Indeed even if nothing
unexpected happens at trial, the district
judge is free, in the exercise of sound
judicial discretion, to alter a previous in
limine ruling.
Luce, 469 U.S. at 41-42.

“A denial of a motion in limine is not

a ruling which affirmatively admits any particular evidence,”

2

Case 2:18-cv-00356-JES-MRM Document 290 Filed 02/15/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3498

Harris, 2021 WL 5028201, at *1, and does not preserve an issue for
appellate review.

United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1356 n.2

(11th Cir. 2009).
II.
All the parties wish to exclude something which an opponent
believes

to

be

properly

admissible.

The

Court

begins

with

Plaintiff Skypoint Advisors, LLC. (Skypoint’s) Motion (Doc. #271)
and the Response.

(Doc. #287.)

The motion is granted in part and

denied in part, using the same sub-paragraph numbering as in the
Motion:
1.

Plaintiff

seeks

to

exclude

any

reference

to

other

unrelated litigation involving Skypoint, or its member, Denis
Dreni,

and

any

attempt

to

characterize

Dreni

as

an

“abusive

litigant” based upon those irrelevant cases, and all other evidence
related thereto.

The Court cannot determine that such evidence is

clearly inadmissible for any purpose, and therefore the motion in
limine is denied.

The Court reminds counsel that a denial of a

motion in limine does not mean the evidence will be admitted at
trial.

If an objection(s) is made to such evidence, the Court

will make its determination based on the state of the record at
that time.
2.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude any testimony as to improper

character evidence in the form of attempting to allege or imply
that Dreni was acting in an immoral manner.

3

While “improper”

Case 2:18-cv-00356-JES-MRM Document 290 Filed 02/15/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID 3499

character evidence is by definition not admissible, the parties
disagree whether the anticipated evidence is improper or not.

As

with paragraph 1, the Court cannot determine that such anticipated
evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose, and therefore
the motion in limine is denied.
3.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude all references to 3 Amigos’

individual managing members being employed by the United States
government, or alluding to the United States government’s approval
of the Film.

As with paragraph 1, the Court cannot determine that

such anticipated evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose,
and therefore the motion in limine is denied.
4.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude any testimony attempting to

allege that Dreni smoked marijuana or provided marijuana to others.
Such testimony may (or may not) be admissible.

For example, if

Dreni had smoked marijuana at a time which may affect his recall
of relevant events, the chances of that evidence being admissible
are increased. As with paragraph 1, the Court cannot determine
that such anticipated evidence is clearly inadmissible for any
purpose, and therefore the motion in limine is denied.
5.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude any double hearsay testimony

or any commentary by defense witnesses on the content of documents
which have not been admitted to evidence.

The Court does not have

any idea what this refers to, and while it sounds generally
correct, it may not always be so.

4

For example, an expert may

Case 2:18-cv-00356-JES-MRM Document 290 Filed 02/15/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID 3500

consider certain types of documents which have not been admitted
into evidence.

As with paragraph 1, the Court cannot determine

that such anticipated evidence is clearly inadmissible for any
purpose, and therefore the motion in limine is denied.
6.

Plaintiff

seeks

to

exclude

any

admission

of

the

purported Google notification that Zaroui claims to have received,
and that he believes indicates that his email account was hacked,
without first requiring the declarant of that statement to testify
and authenticate the statement.

The Court cannot resolve the

parties’ evidentiary dispute in a vacuum, and would simply note
that the party seeking admission of a document will have the burden
of establishing its admissibility.
cannot

determine

that

such

As with paragraph 1, the Court

anticipated

evidence

is

clearly

inadmissible for any purpose, and therefore the motion in limine
is denied.
7.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude any undisclosed document or

communications relating to the counterclaims’ damages which were
not provided by Defendants in response to Skypoint’s discovery
requests. As with paragraph 1, the Court cannot determine that
such anticipated evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose,
and therefore the motion in limine is denied.
8.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude any and all personal opinions

and/or speculations about what prompted the Gmail notification
without first providing a proper foundation.

5

As with paragraph 1,

Case 2:18-cv-00356-JES-MRM Document 290 Filed 02/15/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID 3501

the Court cannot determine that such anticipated evidence is
clearly inadmissible for any purpose, and therefore the motion in
limine is denied.
9.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude any statements by 3 Amigos

that its members viewed Dreni’s proposal as something that might
be perceived as an attempt to potentially bribe or otherwise
improperly incentivize Albanian public officials in the QKK in
order to ensure that the movie secured funds.

As with paragraph

1, the Court cannot determine that such anticipated evidence is
clearly inadmissible for any purpose, and therefore the motion in
limine is denied.
10.

Plaintiff

seeks

to

exclude

any

name

dropping

of

celebrities that are not relevant to the issues of this case.

At

this point, the Court cannot determine who is a celebrity and
whether he or she is relevant to the issues in the case.

As with

paragraph 1, the Court cannot determine that such anticipated
evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose, and therefore
the motion in limine is denied.
11.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude any opinion testimony by

Crawford under the guise of expert opinion testimony.

For the

reasons set forth in the Opinion and Order (Doc. #289), Crawford
will not be allowed to testify as an expert.
motion is granted.

6

This portion of the

Case 2:18-cv-00356-JES-MRM Document 290 Filed 02/15/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID 3502

12.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude any improper admission of

transcripts, affidavits, or documents, through testimony without
those items first being admitted into evidence by the Court. While
this appears to be the normal trial practice, the Court has no
idea of the import of the request.
cannot

determine

that

such

As with paragraph 1, the Court

anticipated

evidence

is

clearly

inadmissible for any purpose, and therefore the motion in limine
is denied.
13.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude any assertions of character

evidence whether positive or negative.

As with paragraph 1, the

Court cannot determine that such anticipated evidence is clearly
inadmissible for any purpose, and therefore the motion in limine
is denied.
14.

Plaintiff

speculation/opinion
predicate,

when

seeks

to

testimony
making

exclude

without

statements

any

prior

reputational

authentication

regarding

non-parties’

involvement in the subject matter of the litigation.
has no idea what this means.

or

The Court

As with paragraph 1, the Court cannot

determine that such anticipated evidence is clearly inadmissible
for any purpose, and therefore the motion in limine is denied.
15.

Plaintiff

seeks

to

exclude

any

testimony

regarding

hearsay statements from third-parties in an attempt to prove the
truth of the matter asserted that Crawford and Zaroui allege they
were injured from the alleged defamation, such as statements made

7

Case 2:18-cv-00356-JES-MRM Document 290 Filed 02/15/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID 3503

by people who purportedly did not hire them.

Unless an exception

applies, and a party objects to the question at trial, hearsay
will not be admitted.

As with paragraph 1, the Court cannot

determine that such anticipated evidence is clearly inadmissible
for any purpose, and therefore the motion in limine is denied.
16.
languages.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude all documents in foreign
The motion is denied on the condition that the party

offering the evidence provides a proper translation.

See Banco

Intercontinental, S.A. v. Alvarez Renta, No. 04-20727-CIV, 2005 WL
8168713, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2005). 1
17.
languages.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude all text messages in foreign
The motion is denied as set forth in paragraph 16. 2
III.

Third-party defendant Dreni also seeks to exclude a wide range
of information and conduct.
filed a response.
entirety.

(Doc. #270.)

(Doc. #286.)

Third-party plaintiffs

The motion is denied in its

The Court applies the Federal Rules of Evidence.

ML

Healthcare Services, LLC v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 881 F.3d

The parties should try to submit only official or stipulated
translations of any evidence in a foreign language. If this is
not possible and one party believes that the other party’s
translation is inaccurate, the party challenging the accuracy of
the translation may submit another translation, and both parties
may submit evidence to support the accuracy of their translation.
The jury may then decide which translation is accurate.
1

2

See, supra, fn. 1.

8

Case 2:18-cv-00356-JES-MRM Document 290 Filed 02/15/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID 3504

1293, 1299 (11th Cir. 2018).
Additionally,

a

motion

in

Yet Dreni only cites to Florida law.
limine

is

intended

to

address

the

admissibility of evidence, not the conduct of counsel at trial.
Thus, while the conduct in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 are
generally not appropriate, they are also not subject to a motion
in limine.

The evidence sought to be excluded in paragraphs 1, 2,

and 3 may indeed be admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 701 depending
on the foundation at trial.

Finally, the arguments sought to be

excluded in paragraphs 9 and 10 may be appropriate, depending on
the evidence admitted at trial.
IV.
Defendants
conduct.

also

seek

(Doc. # 277.)

to

exclude

certain

information

Skypoint filed a response in opposition.

(Doc. #285.)

Defendants cite no legal authority at all.

the

provide

motions

and

sufficient

information

for

the

None of
Court

to

determine that such anticipated evidence or argument is clearly
inadmissible for any purpose, and therefore the motion in limine
is denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.

Denis Dreni’s Motion in Limine (Doc. #270) is DENIED

2.

Skypoint’s Motion in Limine (Doc. #271) is DENIED except
for ¶ 11, which is GRANTED.

9

Case 2:18-cv-00356-JES-MRM Document 290 Filed 02/15/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID 3505

3.

3 Amigos Productions, LLC, BlackburnSteele LLC, Mark
Crawford, and Issa Zaroui’s Motion is Limine (Doc. #277)
is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of February, 2022.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

10

15th

day