Anastasion v. Credit Service of Logan et al

Filing 219

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 192 Motion in Limine ; denying 200 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 10/17/2011. (asp)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

AMY ANASTASION,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
DEFENDANT’S BONA FIDE ERROR
DEFENSE AND PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
CERTAIN EVIDENCE REGARDING
DEFENDANT’S INTERNAL
RECORDS AND PROCEDURES
NOT PRODUCED

vs.

CREDIT SERVICE OF LOGAN, INC. dba
ALLIED COLLECTION SERVICE,
BRITTANY APARTMENTS, L.L.C., and
DOES 1-10,

Case No. 2:08-CV-180 TS

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant’s
Bona Fide Error Defense1 and Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Evidence

1

Docket No. 192.
1

Regarding Defendant’s Internal Records and Procedures Not Produced.2 For the reasons set forth
below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motions without prejudice.
Plaintiff filed the present Motions on October 11, 2011. With respect to Plaintiff’s
Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant’s Bona Fide Error Defense, it is unclear what Plaintiff is
requesting. If Plaintiff is requesting that the Court bar Defendant from raising bona fide error as
a defense, the Motion is denied as an untimely motion for summary judgment. This Motion
could also be construed as a request to preclude Defendant from presenting evidence regarding a
bona fide error defense. With respect to this interpretation of the request, the Motion will be
treated together with Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Evidence Regarding
Defendant’s Internal Records and Procedures Not Produced.
To the extent that Plaintiff’s Motions seek to preclude Defendant from submitting
evidence relating to a bona fide error defense or Defendant’s internal records and procedures, the
Court will deny the Motions without prejudice, as Plaintiff has not indicated what specific
evidence should be excluded. However, the Court does not intend to allow either party to submit
undisclosed evidence or witnesses and Plaintiff will have an opportunity to object if Defendant
attempts to offer any such evidence at trial.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant’s Bona Fide Error
Defense (Docket No. 192) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to later objections being raised
at trial. It is further

2

Docket No. 200.
2

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Evidence Regarding
Defendant’s Internal Records and Procedures Not Produced (Docket No. 200) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to later objections being raised at trial.
DATED October 17, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

3