Zander v Lake County, Indiana et al

Filing 100

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 91 First MOTION in Limine and granting 92 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 7/12/17. (nal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION

REBECCA ZANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMUEL ORLICH, JR.,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 2:14-CV-400-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion In Limine [DE 91] filed with the Court June
26, 2017, by Plaintiff Rebecca Zander, by counsel, and the Motion In Limine [DE 92] filed with
the Court June 27, 2017, by Defendant Samuel Orlich, Jr., by counsel. The Court has also
considered the Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine [DE 98] filed July 7, 2017.
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).
A court’s rulings in limine are preliminary in nature and subject to change. 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.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
1.a.

Evidence or argument regarding settlement discussions or attempts.

RULING:

The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant Orlich has
no objection.

1.b.

Evidence or argument about “bad acts” by Plaintiff Zander..

RULING:

The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is PARTIALLY GRANTED and PARTIALLY
DENIED. It is granted as to the broad category of “bad acts” in general. It is denied
to the extent of Plaintiff Zander’s reputation for having a character for truthfulness
or untruthfulness (F.R.E. 608 (a) and (b)). It is denied to the extent Plaintiff Zander
may, during presentation of her witnesses and evidence, “open the door” to the issue.

1.c.

Evidence or argument that Plaintiff Zander’s counsel is attempting trickery or the
like.

RULING:

The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant Orlich has
no objection.

2

1.d.

Evidence or argument about Plaintiff Zander’s attorney contract, relationship, or fee
arrangement.

RULING:

The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant Orlich has
no objection.

1.e.

Evidence or argument about Plaintiff Zander’s income tax consequences should she
be awarded a verdict by the jury.

RULING:

The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant Orlich has
no objection.

1.f.

Evidence or argument about Plaintiff Zander’s investment opportunities for money
possibly awarded by the jury.

RULING:

The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant Orlich has
no objection.

1.g.

Evidence or argument about Defendant Orlich’s ability or inability to pay a judgment
and liability insurance matters regarding him.

RULING:

The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant Orlich has
no objection.

3

1.h.

Evidence or argument that Plaintiff Zander and her attorney are asking for a greater
amount of money then they expect to be awarded by the jury.

RULING:

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

1.i.

Evidence or argument that Plaintiff Zander is trying to win a lottery or is pursuing
a get rich quick scheme or the like and / or that she filed for bankruptcy court relief.

RULING:

The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED as to the sole fact that Plaintiff
Zander filed for bankruptcy court relief; it is DENIED as to evidence she may have
been untruthful, dishonest, or not appropriately forthcoming with information in her
bankruptcy paperwork or proceeding; also, it is DENIED as to argument in the
nature of statements like she may be trying to win a lottery or is pursuing a get rich
quick scheme.

1.j.

Evidence or argument that Plaintiff Zander must prove a specific dollar amount for
non-economic damages.

RULING:

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

1.k.

Evidence or arguments referring to failure by Plaintiff Zander to call some or all
witnesses to testify that she may have called.

RULING:

The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is DENIED in this regard. Of course, either side
may tell the jury that all potential witnesses are equally available for either party to
subpoena to testify at trial.

4

1.l.

Evidence or argument about the date Plaintiff Zander filed her Complaint.

RULING:

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

1.m.

Evidence or argument that Plaintiff Zander attempted to limit evidence by filing her
Motion In Limine.

RULING:

The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant Orlich has
no objection.

1.n.

Evidence or argument that Defendant Orlich has done specific good acts in an
attempt to bolster his general character or reputation.

RULING:

The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is generally GRANTED in this regard; however,
should Plaintiff Zander open the door to the general character or general reputation
of Defendant Orlich then he may, within the court’s discretion, present evidence and
argument showing specific good acts by him.

1.o.

Evidence or argument by Defendant Orlich or his counsel that he is shocked (or the
like) by the amount of damages being requested by Plaintiff Zander and her counsel.

RULING:

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

1.p.

Evidence or argument about the personal beliefs of Defendant Orlich or his counsel
about the credibility of any witnesses or the credibility of Plaintiff Zander’s claims.

RULING:

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

5

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
1.

Evidence or argument regarding settlement discussions or attempts.

RULING:

The Defendant’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Plaintiff Zander has
no objection.

2.

Evidence or argument insurance coverage that may or may not be available to pay
a judgment in this case.

RULING:

The Defendant’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Plaintiff Zander has
no objection.

3.

Evidence or argument about Defendant Orlich’s general financial condition or his
ability or inability to pay a judgment in this case.

RULING:

The Defendant’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Plaintiff Zander
has no objection.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff Zander’s Motion In Limine [DE 91] is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. The Defendant Orlich’s Motion In Limine [DE 92] is GRANTED.
So ORDERED this 12th day of July, 2017.

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

6