Lee v. Dennison et al
ORDER Denying as premature 97 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 132 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 Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (#97) to preclude
Defendants from suggesting that there may be undisclosed medical records. Defendants filed a
response in opposition (#107).
This action arises from a motor vehicle accident on September 9, 2017. Plaintiff Alexis
Lee (“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. While Defendants have generally accepted liability,
the parties still dispute the amount and causation of damages alleged by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s first motion in limine argues that “Defendants should be precluded from
arguing that Alexis suffered from some imaginary spine injury, or that some injury predating the
crash, solely because Plaintiff lacks medical records to disprove Defendants’ baseless
allegations.” Doc. No. 97 at p. 6, l.15-17. Plaintiffs argue that allowing such argument would
require Plaintiff to prove a negative.
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
Case 2:19-cv-01332-KJD-NJK Document 132 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
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
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.
Plaintiff argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 403 precludes any testimony regarding
missing medical records: “[even] [r]elevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the
jury, or if it would result in undue delay, waste of time, or a needlessly cumulative presentation
of evidence.” Plaintiffs argue that the evidence is not relevant and its admission would be too
However, with causation and damages still at issue, prior injury is relevant and it appears
that Defendant intends to address this through Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, Defenses’ expert
witness, and Plaintiff’s existing medical records. Defendants oppose the motion asserting that
they are not relying on a lack of records to prove a pre-existing back injury. The Court agrees
that Defendants may attempt to introduce relevant evidence of prior injury. The weight and
credibility of that evidence is for the jury to decide. To the extent that Defendants refer to a lack
of medical records, they must lay the appropriate foundation before doing so. Accordingly, the
Court denies the motion in limine as premature, subject to renewal if Defendants ask questions
with appropriate foundation demonstrating relevance and lack of prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (#97) is
DENIED as premature.
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?