Beron v. Alvarez

Filing 72

ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence 60 is GRANTED in PART as follows: (A) Defendant is prohibited from introducing evidence during trial that he did not produce to Plaintiffs in due course during the discovery phase of this case. (B) Defendant is prohibited from mentioning to the jury that he is unable to afford an attorney. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 11/7/2011. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
NESTOR BERON, on Behalf of
Himself and Those Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:10-cv-1014-T-33TBM

MIGUEL ALVAREZ d/b/a Gustech
Communications-Orlando,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs’
Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence (Doc. # 60), which was
filed on October 17, 2011.

Defendant failed to file a

response in opposition to the Motion in Limine.

The Court

grants the Motion in Limine in part as follows.
Discussion
This case is set for a jury trial during the Court’s
November

2011,

trial

term.

Plaintiffs

seek

an

order

prohibiting pro se Defendant from offering into evidence any
testimony or exhibits that he failed to disclose to Plaintiffs
during discovery.

In addition, Plaintiffs seek an order

preventing Defendant from mentioning to the jury that he is
pro se and that he cannot afford an attorney.
The Court determines that the Motion is an unopposed

Motion.

Defendant was given ample opportunity to prepare and

file a response to the Motion in Limine but elected not to do
so.

The Court grants the Motion in Limine with respect to

items of evidence not disclosed in discovery and Defendant’s
financial status.
In the instance that Defendant failed to produce certain
items of evidence to Plaintiffs during discovery, he should
not be permitted to tender such items as evidence during the
trial.

Allowing the introduction of such evidence would

unfairly surprise and prejudice Plaintiffs.
In addition, while the jury will quickly ascertain that
Defendant is appearing pro se, Defendant is prohibited from
mentioning to the jury that he is appearing pro se because he
is unable to afford an attorney.

Such a comment would not be

relevant and could possibly lead the jurors to reach a verdict
based upon sympathy for Defendant due to his financial status.
Defendant is permitted, however, to refer to himself as “pro
se”

because,

throughout

this

litigation,

the

Court

has

repeatedly referred to Defendant as “pro se” and will continue
to do so under appropriate circumstances.
Defendant’s status as a pro se litigant, on its own, is
not prejudicial to Plaintiffs.

Each member of the public has

the right to appear before the Court without the assistance of
2

an attorney in civil cases, such as the present one. The fact
that Defendant has elected to proceed without counsel is not
something that he should be barred from disclosing during the
trial.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence (Doc. #
60) is GRANTED in PART as follows:
(A)

Defendant is prohibited from introducing evidence
during trial that he did not produce to Plaintiffs
in due course during the discovery phase of this
case.

(B)

Defendant is prohibited from mentioning to the jury
that he is unable to afford an attorney.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 7th
day of November, 2011.

Copies: Counsel and Parties of Record

3