Lee v. Dennison et al
ORDER Granting 91 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 1/17/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TRW)
Case 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Document 128 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
DINO DENNISON, et al.,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Reference to
Driver Leaving the Accident Scene Before Permitted (#91). Plaintiff responded. (#117).
This action arises from a motor vehicle accident on September 9, 2017. Plaintiff Alexis Lee
Factual and Procedural Background
(“Lee”) was driving an economy-sized Hyundai Sonata and Defendant Dino Dennison
(“Dennison”) was driving a semi-truck as an employee of Defendant Knight Transportation
(“Knight”) when the two vehicles collided. A nearby police officer responded to the incident,
assessed the situation, and filed a report. Lee filed suit against Dennison and Knight for damages.
Defendants bring this motion in limine to prevent Plaintiff from mentioning that Denison left
the scene of the accident before he was permitted to do because Defendants argue it is
speculative and untrue.
A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism made in advance to limit testimony or
evidence in a particular area” and is “entirely within the discretion of the Court.” Diamond X
Ranch, LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., No. 3:13-cv-00570-MMD-WGC, 2018 WL 2127734, at
*1 (D. Nev. May 8, 2018). A “motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or
weigh evidence.” IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp., No. 2:04-cv-1676-RCJ-RJJ, 2008 WL
7084605, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2008). “To exclude evidence on a motion in limine, ‘the
Case 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Document 128 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
evidence must be inadmissible on all potential grounds.’” Diamond X Ranch, 2018 WL
2127734, at *1 (quoting Indiana Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D.
Defendants argue that testimony about Dennison leaving the scene of the accident early is
speculative and irrelevant. (#91, at 6).
Plaintiff responded, but with a limited opposition. (#117). Plaintiff stated:
To the extent that Defendants’ motion seeks to preclude Alexis or
her counsel from arguing that Dennison fled the scene of the crash,
Alexis does not oppose the motion. However, Alexis should not be
precluded from simply stating when Dennison left the scene as part
of her general narrative of the post-crash events without
characterizing whether or not his departure was “permitted.” A
ruling any broader than this would preclude Alexis from providing
a full narrative of the events on the date of the crash, which would
unfairly hamper her presentation evidence.”
(#117, at 2).
The Court grants Defendants’ motion and notes that in accordance with Plaintiff’s limited
opposition, Plaintiff will only be precluded from testifying or insinuating that Dennison fled the
scene of the accident. Additionally, such narrative testimony will limited because the parties
already stipulated to liability.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine (#91) is
Dated this 17th day of January, 2023.
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge
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?