FRIEBEL et al v. PARADISE SHORES OF BAY COUNTY LLC et al

Filing 320

ORDER granting in part 274 Motion in Limine; granting in part 275 Motion in Limine; granting in part 276 Motion in Limine; denying 277 Motion in Limine; denying 290 Motion in Limine; denying 291 Motion in Limine; denying 305 Motion in Limine. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 7/17/2011. (jem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
JOSHUA S. FRIEBEL and
ELIZABETH F. FRIEBEL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

CASE NO. 5:10cv120/RS-CJK

PARADISE SHORES OF BAY
COUNTY, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
ORDER
Before me are the parties’ motions in limine (Doc. 274, 275, 276, 277, 290,
291, and 305).
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Defendant Blackerby’s first motion in limine (Doc. 274) is granted in
part. The prior testimony of any person who is not a party in this
case is not admissible, except possibly in the case of impeachment.
The admissibility of the prior testimony of any person who is a party
to this case will be determined on a case-by case basis.

2.

Defendant Blackerby’s second motion in limine (Doc. 275) is granted
in part. The pleadings from the previous case shall be admissible

against Defendant Paradise Shores only. As to the pleading signed by
Defendant Blackerby, its admissibility for impeachment will be
determined if and when it becomes necessary.
3.

Defendant Blackerby’s third motion in limine (Doc. 276) is granted
in part. Expert reports of witnesses who were not previously
identified as experts will not be admitted. However, since the reports
were not specifically identified, a determination of admissibility will
be made on a case-by-case basis at trial.

4.

Defendant Blackerby’s fourth motion in limine (Doc. 277) is denied.
Because the “demand letters” in question have not been specifically
identified, I decline to rule in advance on their admissibility.

5.

Defendant Blackerby’s fifth motion in limine (Doc. 290) is denied.
The Rules of Evidence will apply in this case; I need not rule in limine
on such matters. The admissibility of any settlement agreements will
be determined on a case-by-case basis.

6.

Plaintiffs motion in limine (Doc. 291) is denied. Because none of
Brewer’s testimony is before me, I cannot make a ruling on its
admissibility.

7.

Defendant Blackerby’s sixth motion in limine (Doc. 305) is denied.

ORDERED on June 17, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak
RICHARD SMOAK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE