Campbell v. Briere

Filing 60

ORDER denying 50 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 8/13/2018. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
KRISTEN CAMPBELL, AS PARENT
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF A.C.,
A MINOR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-1036-Orl-TBS

RENE BRIERE,
Defendant.
DAN CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-1105-Orl-TBS

RENE BRIERE,
Defendant.
JUSTIN CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-1106-Orl-TBS

RENE BRIERE,
Defendant.
ORDER 1
This case comes before the Court without a hearing on the First Motion in Limine,

On September 6, 2017, the parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate
Judge (Doc. 23). The case was referred to me by an Order of Reference the next day (Doc. 24).
1

filed by Plaintiff Kristen Campbell, as parent and natural guardian of A.C., a minor (Doc.
50). The standards for a motion in limine are well summarized in In re: Seroquel Products
Liability Litigation, Case No. 6:06-md-1769-Orl-22DAB, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124798, at
*275-78 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2009):
A motion in limine presents a pretrial issue of admissibility of
evidence that is likely to arise at trial, and as such, the order,
like any other interlocutory order, remains subject to
reconsideration by the court throughout the trial. Stewart v.
Hooters of America, Inc., Civ. No. 8:04-cv-40-T-17-MAP, 2007
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44053, 2007 WL 1752843, *1 (M.D. Fla.
2007). "The real purpose of a motion in limine is to give the
trial judge notice of the movant's position so as to avoid the
introduction of damaging evidence which may irretrievably
effect the fairness of the trial. A court has the power to exclude
evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly inadmissible
on all potential grounds." Id. (citing Luce v. United States, 469
U.S. 38, 41, 105 S. Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) (federal
district courts have authority to make in limine rulings pursuant
to their authority to manage trials).
Unless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary rulings
should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation,
relevancy, and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper
context. See generally 21 Charles A. Wright & Kenneth W.
Graham, Jr., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 5042
(1977 & Supp. 1993). It is the better practice to wait until trial
to rule on objections when admissibility substantially depends
upon what facts may be developed there. Bowden ex rel.
Bowden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. Civ. A 99-D-880E, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7213, 2001 WL 617521, *1 (M.D.
Ala. Feb. 20, 2001) (citing Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975)).
The movant has the burden of demonstrating that the
evidence is inadmissible on any relevant ground. Bowden,
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7213, 2001 WL 617521 at *1 (citing
Plair v. E.J. Brach & Sons, Inc., 864 F. Supp. 67, 69 (N.D. Ill.
1994)). At trial, the court may alter its limine ruling based on
developments at trial or on its sound judicial discretion. Luce
v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41, 105 S. Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d
443 (1984). "Denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily
mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion will be
admitted at trial." Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., 831 F.
Supp. 1398, 1401 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Instead, denial of the
-2-

motion means the court cannot determine whether the
evidence in question should be excluded outside the trial
context. United States v. Connelly, 874 F.2d 412, 416 (7th Cir.
1989). The court will entertain objections on individual proffers
as they arise at trial, even though the proffer falls within the
scope of a denied motion in limine. Id. A ruling in limine does
not "relieve a party from the responsibility of making
objections, raising motions to strike or making formal offers of
proof during the course of trial." Thweatt v. Ontko, 814 F.2d
1466, 1470 (10th Cir. 1987).
Evidence may be excluded when the probative value is
outweighed by its prejudice. Under Rule 403, "[a]lthough
relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by
considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence." FED. R. EVID. 403.
Rule 403 permits a district court to exclude relevant evidence
only when "its probative value is substantially outweighed by
the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay,
waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative
evidence." United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1524 (11th
Cir. 1994). Rule 403 is "an extraordinary remedy" whose
"major function … is limited to excluding matter of scant or
cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the
sake of its prejudicial effect." United States v. Grant, 256 F.3d
1146, 1155 (11th Cir. 2001).
As further explained by In re: Seroquel’s progeny:
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." LSQ Funding Grp. v. EDS Field
Servs., 879 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2012). "Denial
of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all
evidence contemplated by the motion will be admitted at trial."
In re Seroquel, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124798, 2009 WL
260989, at *1 (internal quotation marks omitted). "Instead,
denial of the motion means the court cannot determine
whether the evidence in question should be excluded outside
the trial context." Id. "The court will entertain objections on
individual [*4] proffers as they arise at trial, even though the
proffer falls within the scope of a denied motion in limine." Id.

-3-

Connectus LLC v. Ampush Media, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-2778-T-33JSS, 2017 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 92941, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. June 16, 2017); see Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. European Tile
& Floors, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-729, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86475, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla.
June 6, 2017); Peeler v. KVH Indus., Case No. 8:12-cv-1584-T-33MAP, 2014 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 4618, at *5-6 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2014).
Plaintiff’s motion appears to be a non-case-specific form developed for use in the
Florida state courts. Plaintiff has not cited any federal law in support of the relief
requested. Consequently, the motion is deficient. See M.D. Fla. Rule 3.01(a).
Plaintiff has also failed to comply with M.D. Fla. Rule 3.01(g) before filing the
motion. By local rule, before most motions are filed, counsel are required to meet and
confer, and the attorney filing the motion must certify that this occurred, and the result of
the meet and confer. Plaintiff has done neither.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion in limine is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 13, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-4-