MEISELMAN et al v. HAMILTON FARM GOLF CLUB, LLC et al

Filing 123

MEMORANDUM ORDER that Defendants' Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 92 ) is DENIED; that Plaintiffs; Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 108 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 10/28/2014. (mmh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
KENNETH M. MEISELMAN, et al.,
Civ. No. 11-653
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM ORDER
v.
HAMILTON FARM GOLF CLUB, LLC et
al.,
Defendants.
THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
On May 23, 2014, Defendants Hamilton Farm Golf Club, LLC and HF Business Trust
(collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Motion in Limine to strike the opinions of Plaintiffs’ Expert,
Stephen B. Graves. (Doc. No. 92). Plaintiffs oppose the Motion. (Doc. No. 95). Subsequently
on July 22, 2014, Plaintiffs Kenneth M. Meiselman, et al., (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a
Motion in Limine to limit the testimony of Defendants’ Expert, Jon Peterson. (Doc. No. 108).
Defendants oppose the Motion. (Doc. No. 113).
After reviewing both parties’ submissions, and without oral argument, the Court will
deny both motions in limine at this time. Rather than strike large portions of these experts’
testimony in advance, the Court will permit both parties’ experts to testify at trial, subject to the
following limitations relevant to the motions in limine:
(1) experts, especially non-lawyers, are not permitted to render legal opinions on the
governing law of the suit and cannot offer legal conclusions and arguments relating to legal
terms, see Berckeley Inv. Grp., Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 217 (3d Cir. 2006); Flickinger v.

1

Toys “R” US-Delaware, Inc., 492 F. App’x 217, 224 (3d Cir. 2012); First Nat’l State Bank v.
Reliance Elec. Co., 668 F.2d 725, 731 (3d Cir. 1981);
(2) experts may not testify as to a party’s subjective motivations or intent, as such issues
do not require specialized knowledge or expertise beyond the reach of an average person, see
Gallatin Fuels, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 410 F. Supp. 2d 417, 422–23 (W.D. Pa. 2006);
Lasorsa v. Showboat: The Mardi Gras Casino, Civ. No. 07-4321-JBS-JS, 2009 WL 2929234 at
*5 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2009);
(3) experts may rely on data reasonably relied upon by other experts in the field but
experts may not be used as a “mere conduit” for the transmission of hearsay testimony to the
jury, see Williams v. Illinois, 132 S.Ct. 2221, 2241 (2012); In re TMI Litigation, 193 F.3d 613,
697 (3d Cir. 1999).
If these experts testify on the stand at trial, the Court will carefully scrutinize the
questions posed to and responses elicited from these witnesses to ensure compliance with the
above constraints. Accordingly,
IT IS, on this 28th day of October, 2014,
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 92) is DENIED; and it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 108) is DENIED.

/s/ Anne E. Thompson
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J. 

2