LANGE v. ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER CORPORATION

Filing 203

ENTRY ON ORAL MOTION IN LIMINE - The Court makes the following rulings on Defendant Anchor Glass Container Corporation's oral Motion in Limine: (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/30/2024. (JSR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION
CORY B. LANGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:20-cv-00160-TWP-KMB

ENTRY ON ORAL MOTION IN LIMINE
The Court makes the following rulings on Defendant Anchor Glass Container
Corporation's oral Motion in Limine:
"[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 purposes. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400
(N.D. Ill. 1993).
Attorneys can invoke a motion in limine in the midst of a case if they hear a testimony that
is inaccurate or exaggerated. See, e.g., Reeves v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Chicago, No. 00 C 5048,
2004 WL 742248, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 6, 2004) (precluding lay witness in employment
discrimination case from offering "unsupported speculation" as to why co-worker was promoted);
Euroholdings Capital & Inv. Corp. v. Harris Trust & Sav. Bank, 602 F. Supp. 2d 928, 938–40
(N.D. Ill. 2009) (excluding damages evidence as "overly speculative"). Motions in limine can be
used to prevent the introduction of evidence that is irrelevant, unreliable, or more prejudicial than
probative. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. Total Grain Marketing, LLC, No. 11-cv-0171, 2014 WL

642293, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2014) ("The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial
court to rule on the relevance and admissibility of evidence before it is offered at trial, thereby
avoiding the injection of irrelevant, prejudicial or immaterial matters.") (citing Fed. R. Civ. Evid.
104(a); and Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984)).
The Court has excluded evidence concerning the dates of employment termination for
Robert Wetzler and Dustin Allen. That evidence is that Wetzler was hired on May 18, 2015 and
terminated on May 19, 2015, and Allen was hired on May 18, 2015 and terminated on June 9,
2015.
Because there is no evidence before the jury as to when or why the employment of Wetzler
and Allen ended, the Court limits any argument that Wetzler or Allen remained employed despite
having criminal convictions. The only acceptable argument is that Wetzler and Allen were hired
by Anchor Glass on a certain date. Parties may argue that there is no evidence before the jury as
to the length of Wetzler's or Allen's employment or evidence that Anchor Glass was aware of the
convictions at the time when Wetzler or Allen were hired.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 8/30/2024

DISTRIBUTION:
Diana L. Emerson
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
[e-mail]
Grant E. Swartzentruber
SWARTZENTRUBER BROWN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLC
[e-mail]

2

Stephen E. Imm
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
[e-mail]
Christopher C. Murray
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
[e-mail]
Ellen Pactor
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
[e-mail]

3