Moody et al v. Michigan Gaming Control Board et al
Filing
233
OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' 223 MOTION in Limine without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN MOODY, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 12-cv-13593
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
MICHIGAN GAMING CONTROL
BOARD, ET AL.,
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE [#223]
I. INTRODUCTION
Present before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine. Dkt. No. 223.
Plaintiffs move to exclude two categories of evidence at trial: (1) any mention of
the term “race-fixing” and (2) evidence of any penalties, disputes, discipline, etc.
that Plaintiffs received during their racing careers and which are unrelated to the
instant case. The Court will resolve the Motion without a hearing. See E.D. Mich.
LR 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will DENY the Motion
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
-1-
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion in limine refers to “any motion, whether made before or during
trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually
offered.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40, n.2 (1984). The purpose of these
motions is “to narrow the issues remaining for trial and to minimize disruptions at
trial.” United States v. Brawner, 173 F.3d 966, 970 (6th Cir. 1999). In disposing
of a motion in limine, the guiding principle is to “ensure evenhanded and
expeditious management of trials.” Ind. Ins. Co. v. GE, 326 F. Supp. 2d 844, 846
(N.D. Ohio, 2004).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiffs have not Demonstrated that the Probative Value of the
Term “Racing-Fixing” is Substantially Outweighed by any
Prejudicial Effect
Plaintiffs first move to exclude any use of the term “race-fixing” at trial on
the grounds that the term is inherently prejudicial. See Dkt. No. 223, p. 2 (Pg. ID
4610); Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if
its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair
prejudice.”). In support, Plaintiffs argue that the term cannot be found anywhere in
the Michigan Horse Racing Statute or other relevant authority. Dkt. No. 223, p. 2
(Pg. ID 4610). Instead, Plaintiffs contend that the proper characterization of their
-2-
allegations is “failing to give your best effort” and/or “accepting something of
value in order to influence the outcome of a race.” Id. at pp. 2-3 (Pg. ID 4610-11).
Critically, Plaintiffs fail to present any case law suggesting the term “racefixing” -- or any similar terms -- is highly prejudicial. Moreover, the Court is not
convinced that such a term has more of a potential negative connotation than the
phrase “influence the outcome of a race.” Accordingly, the Court finds that the
probative value of the term “race-fixing” is not substantially outweighed by any
prejudicial effect.
B. Plaintiffs have not Demonstrated that Federal Rule of Evidence 609
Applies to Disciplinary Actions from an Administrative Body
Plaintiffs next move to exclude any evidence of penalties, disputes,
discipline, etc. that they have received during their racing careers and which are
unrelated to the instant case. Id. at p. 2 (Pg. ID 4610). The primary basis for this
request appears to be Federal Rule of Evidence 609.
Rule 609 governs the limitations on attacking a witness’s character for
truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction. FRE 609. But in United States
v. Westbrook, the Seventh Circuit held that the findings of a municipal
administrative forum do not fit within the language or intent of Rule 609. 589 F.2d
273, 277 (7th Cir. 1978). Plaintiffs have not presented any case law to the contrary
or attempted to respond to Defendants’ arguments. Nevertheless, the Court agrees
that the plain language of Rule 609 does not contemplate evidence of
-3-
administrative findings.
Accordingly, the Court will not exclude evidence of
Plaintiffs’ administrative penalties, disputes, and discipline on Rule 609 grounds.
Nor will the Court, at this juncture, exclude this evidence on relevancy
grounds.
See Federal Rule of Evidence 402 (“Irrelevant evidence is not
admissible.”). Plaintiffs fail to identify specific penalties, disputes, or discipline
that it seeks to exclude. By failing to do so, Plaintiffs do not give Defendants an
adequate opportunity to respond, and the Court has no basis to properly assess
Plaintiffs’ arguments.
However, should specific and potentially irrelevant
evidence be offered at trial, Plaintiffs may renew their objection at that time.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion in
Limine WITHOUT PREJUDICE [#223].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 18, 2019
s/Gershwin A. Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge
-4-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys
of record on this date, March 18, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Teresa McGovern
Case Manager
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?