Hamilton v. Spurling et al

Filing 32

DECISION AND ORDER denying 23 Motion in Limine WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 12/20/11. (pb1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DAVID HAMILTON,

:

Plaintiff,

:
Case No. 3:11cv00102

vs.

:

GORDON J. SPURLING,
et al.,

:

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
(pursuant to full consent of the parties)

:
Defendants.
:

DECISION AND ORDER

The case is before the Court upon Plaintiff David Hamilton’s Motion in Limine to
Exclude Evidence of Certain Unsupported and Unsupportable Claims (Doc. #23),
Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. #24), Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum
(Doc. #30), and the record as a whole.
Plaintiff seeks an Order excluding evidence of his prior alleged theft conviction in
1990. He argues that such evidence must be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 609(b) because
it concerns an alleged conviction that is more than ten years old. Plaintiff also argues that
evidence of the alleged transgression is not relevant to the matters at issue in this case.
Plaintiff’s arguments lack merit at the present time because evidence of a
conviction that is older than ten years is sometimes admissible – specifically, if the “court
determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported

by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. . . .”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 609(b). Neither that determination nor the relevancy of the alleged theft
conviction can be made at this point in the case because discovery is ongoing and the
factual record will doubtlessly evolve in the coming months.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. #23) is DENIED without
prejudice to renewal.

December 20, 2011

s/Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
United States Magistrate Judge

2