Cosby v. Joshi et al
ORDER denying 35 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MARSHELLE RUTH COSBY,
Case No. 15-14442
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
SUNITA JOSHI and EVEREST
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
a foreign corporation, jointly and severally,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION IN LIMINE
Before the court is Defendant Everest National Insurance Company’s motion
in limine, which has been fully briefed. Plaintiff brought this action to recover
personal insurance protection benefits under an automobile insurance policy issued
by Defendant. Defendant seeks to exclude evidence of wage loss at trial, arguing
that Plaintiff is not entitled to wage loss because she was unemployed at the time
of her auto accident. Defendant also seeks to exclude evidence of allegedly
duplicative medical billing.
A motion in limine is “any motion, whether made before or during trial, to
exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.”
Louzon v. Ford Motor Co., 718 F.3d 556, 561 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). A
motion in limine is a procedural mechanism for resolving evidentiary issues, not
factual disputes, the sufficiency of the evidence, or substantive legal matters. Id. at
561-63. As the Sixth Circuit has emphasized, “a mechanism already exists in civil
actions to resolve non-evidentiary matters prior to trial – the summary judgment
motion. Allowing a party to litigate matters that have been or should have been
resolved at an earlier stage not only allows those dissatisfied with the court’s initial
ruling a chance to relitigate, but deprives their opponents of the procedural
protections that attach at summary judgment.” Id. at 561.
Defendant’s motion raises non-evidentiary issues: whether Plaintiff is
entitled to claim wage loss and whether she is entitled to seek allegedly duplicative
damages related to a Medicaid lien. Although Defendant’s motion is characterized
as a motion in limine, it raises issues related to the viability of Plaintiff’s damages
claims, not issues related to the admissibility of evidence at trial. “Where, as here,
the motion in limine is no more than a rephrased summary judgment motion, the
motion should not be considered.” Louzon, 718 F.3d at 563.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion in limine
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: June 22, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on this date, June 22, 2017, using the ECF system.
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?