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)
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?