Delarosa v. Speedway LLC

Filing 31

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion in Limine as set forth in order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 9/26/13. (mc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION

LUPITA DELAROSA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPEEDWAY LLC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No.: 2:11-CV-476-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine [DE 21] filed with the
Court September 10, 2013, by Plaintiff Lupita Delorasa, by counsel. On September 25, 2013,
Defendant Speedway LLC, by counsel, filed its Defendant’s Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s
Motion in Limine [DE 30]. No replies were permitted.
In determination of these issues the Court FINDS, ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and
DECREES:
Federal Rule of Evidence 104 provides, in part: “Preliminary questions concerning . . .
admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the Court.” Motions in Limine to exclude evidence
prior to trial are subject to a rigorous standard of review. Courts may bar evidence in limine “only
when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Dartey v. Ford Motor Co., 104 F.
Supp. 2d 1017, 1020 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (quoting Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., 831 F. Supp.
1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993)). If evidence does not meet this standard, “the evidentiary rulings
should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevance and potential prejudice may
be resolved in proper context.” Id. (quoting Hawthorne, 831 F. Supp. at 1400).
In this Order the Court is not making final determination on the admissibility of any

evidence. The Court reserves the right to change these rulings during the trial should the Court find
that the evidence or arguments at trial justify such change.

1.
RULING:

Evidence that Plaintiff Lupita Delarosa hired counsel to represent her in this case.
The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard to the extent it goes
to portray her as a litigious or greedy person.

2.
RULING:

3.
RULING:

4.

Plaintiff Lupita Delorasa’s attorney-client communications.
The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard.

Evidence relating to settlement negotiations.
The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard.

Evidence relating to lack of prior similar falls or accidents at that place on the
premises of Defendant Speedway LLC

RULING:

The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is DENIED in that regard. Such evidence is
relevant and generally admissible on the issue of foreseeability by the premises
owner.

5.

Evidence of insurance coverage on, or insurance payments to, Plaintiff Lupita
Delorasa.

RULING:

The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard.

2

Wherefore, the Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine [DE 21] is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part.
SO ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2013.

s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

3