RED BARN MOTORS, INC. et al v. NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC. et al

Filing 225

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY - 183 Motion in Limine is DENIED. An order in limine is not a final, appealable order. Evidentiary rulings regarding Hoffman's anticipated testimony are deferred until t rial so that questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice can be resolved in context. If the parties believe that specific evidence is inadmissible during the course of the trial, counsel may raise specific objections to that evidence. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/2/2017. (LBT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
RED BARN MOTORS, INC.,
PLATINUM MOTORS, INC., and
MATTINGLY AUTO SALES, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC. f/k/a DEALER
SERVICES CORPORATION,
COX ENTERPRISES, INC.,
COX AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and
JOHN WICK,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-01589-TWP-DKL

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
This matter is before the Court on a Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of
David P. Hoffman (“Motion in Limine”) filed by Plaintiffs Red Barn Motors, Inc., Platinum
Motors, Inc., and Mattingly Auto Sales, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) (Filing No. 183). The
Plaintiffs each executed a separate contract with Defendant NextGear Capital, Inc. (“NextGear”),
whereby the Plaintiffs were provided lines of credit for financing their used car dealership
operations. After the Plaintiffs discovered that they had been charged interest and fees on money
that had not yet actually been loaned, they initiated this litigation, asserting claims for breach of
contract, constructive fraud, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. Class certification was recently granted on the breach of
contract and RICO claims (Filing No. 220).
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion in Limine, asking the Court to exclude any expert
testimony from the Defendants’ disclosed expert witness, David P. Hoffman (“Hoffman”), who

has provided an expert report relating to damages. For the following reasons, the Plaintiffs’ Motion
in Limine is DENIED.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[J]udges have broad discretion in ruling on evidentiary questions during trial or before on
motions in limine.” Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002). The
Court excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly is not admissible for
any purpose. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D.
Ill. 1993). Unless evidence meets this exacting standard, evidentiary rulings must be deferred until
trial so questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice may be resolved in context. Id. at 1400–
01. Moreover, denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence
contemplated by the motion is admissible; rather, it only means that, at the pretrial stage, the Court
is unable to determine whether the evidence should be excluded. Id. at 1401.
II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs ask the Court to specifically exclude the testimony of Hoffman pertaining to
amounts owed by Plaintiffs to NextGear. They point out that Hoffman provides his calculations
“to the extent they are relevant to a counterclaim, a setoff defense, or otherwise.” (Filing No. 183
at 1.) Plaintiffs assert that Defendants had not yet filed an answer, counterclaim, or defense to the
Complaint, and thus, any proposed expert testimony regarding damages calculations are not yet
relevant. Plaintiffs conclude their Motion in Limine by asserting, “Further, Plaintiffs reserve all
rights to challenge Hoffman’s testimony later in these proceedings, after Defendants have filed
their answer, defenses, and any counterclaims.” Id. at 2.
In response to the Motion in Limine, Defendants explain that they served their expert report
from Hoffman before ever filing their answer and defenses because of the timing of the case

2

management plan and the Court’s scheduling orders as well as their motion to dismiss, which had
been pending at the time of serving the expert report. Defendants assert that the Motion in Limine
was premature because the relevance of Hoffman’s anticipated testimony was to be measured
against Defendants’ answer, counterclaim, or defenses, which at the time had not yet been filed
and was not yet due. They argue that setoff calculations are indeed relevant and should not be
excluded at this stage.
Since filing their response to the Motion in Limine, Defendants have filed their Answer
and Affirmative Defenses and have asserted a setoff defense (Filing No. 188 at 17). Therefore,
Plaintiffs’ argument—relevance of Hoffman’s calculations in relation to any setoff defense—is
now moot, and the parties can fully explore this issue.
As noted above, the Court excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence
clearly is not admissible for any purpose. Such is not the case with Hoffman’s proposed expert
report and testimony.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Filing No.
183). An order in limine is not a final, appealable order. Evidentiary rulings regarding Hoffman’s
anticipated testimony are deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy, and
prejudice can be resolved in context. If the parties believe that specific evidence is inadmissible
during the course of the trial, counsel may raise specific objections to that evidence.
SO ORDERED.

Date: 7/2/2017

3

Distribution:

Ryan D. Adams
SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT LLC
[e-mail]
Jacob A. Airey
SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, LLC.
[e-mail]
Lisa Brener
Brener Law Firm, LLC
[e-mail]
Matthew M. Coman
SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT LLC
[e-mail]
Kathleen Ann DeLaney
DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
[e-mail]
Cassie E. Felder
THE CASSIE FELDER LAW FIRM
[e-mail]
James M. Garner
SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, LLC
[e-mail]
Steven D. Groth
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP
[e-mail]
Gladstone N. Jones
JONES SWANSON HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC
[e-mail]
David J. Jurkiewicz
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP
[e-mail]
Catherine E. Lasky
JONES SWANSON HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC
[e-mail]
4

Tracey K. Ledbetter
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
[e-mail]
Jason S. McCarter
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
[e-mail]
Kerry A. Murphy
JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC
[e-mail]
Lynn E. Swanson
JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL& GARRISON, LLC
[e-mail]
Paul D. Vink
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP
[e-mail],[e-mail]

5