Lee v. Dennison et al

Filing 131

ORDER Granting 94 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 1/17/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TRW)

Download PDF
Case 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Document 131 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 ALEXIS LEE, 7 Plaintiff, 8 9 12 ORDER v. DINO DENNISON, et al., 10 11 Case No. 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Defendants. Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7 to Exclude Liability Arguments as Defendants Have Accepted Liability. (#94). Plaintiff responded. (#120). 13 I. 14 This action arises from a motor vehicle accident on September 9, 2017. Plaintiff Alexis Lee Factual and Procedural Background 15 (“Lee”) was driving an economy-sized Hyundai Sonata and Defendant Dino Dennison 16 (“Dennison”) was driving a semi-truck as an employee of Defendant Knight Transportation 17 (“Knight”) when the two vehicles collided. A nearby police officer responded to the incident, 18 assessed the situation, and filed a report. Lee filed suit against Dennison and Knight for damages. 19 Defendants bring this motion in limine to preclude Plaintiff from making arguments and 20 including evidence and testimony on liability because Defendants have already accepted liability 21 for the subject accident and all that remains for trial is damages. 22 II. 23 A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism made in advance to limit testimony or 24 evidence in a particular area” and is “entirely within the discretion of the Court.” Diamond X 25 Ranch, LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., No. 3:13-cv-00570-MMD-WGC, 2018 WL 2127734, at 26 *1 (D. Nev. May 8, 2018). A “motion in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes or 27 weigh evidence.” IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp., No. 2:04-cv-1676-RCJ-RJJ, 2008 WL 28 7084605, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2008). “To exclude evidence on a motion in limine, ‘the Analysis Case 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Document 131 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2 1 evidence must be inadmissible on all potential grounds.’” Diamond X Ranch, 2018 WL 2 2127734, at *1 (quoting Indiana Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D. 3 Ohio 2004)). 4 Defendants argue that because liability has been accepted and all that remains for trial is 5 damages, arguments on the issue of liability are unnecessary, unreasonable, and a waste of 6 judicial economy. (#94, at 6). 7 Plaintiff filed a limited opposition, asserting that Plaintiff does not intend to develop the issue 8 of liability during trial, but argues that Plaintiff is entitled to discuss the facts and circumstances 9 of the accident. (#120, at 2). Plaintiff also takes issue with how broad Defendant’s motion is. Id. 10 The Court finds that because the parties have stipulated that Defendants are liable for causing 11 the crash, it is unnecessary to make arguments developing that issue. However, Plaintiff is 12 entitled to discuss the underlying facts of the accident, and the Court can address during trial 13 whether specific questions fall outside the scope of this order. 14 III. Conclusion 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine (#94) is 16 GRANTED. 17 Dated this 17th day of January, 2023. 18 19 20 _____________________________ Kent J. Dawson United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?