Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wade v. Churyk

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

August 13, 2018

DANIEL WADE and SALLY WADE
v.
BORIS CHURYK

          RULING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

          HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pending are defendant's Motions in Limine. [Doc. #78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85].

         Standard of Review

         “The purpose of an in limine motion is ‘to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.'” Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Banque Hypothecaire Du Canton De Genève v. Union Mines, 652 F.Supp. 1400, 1401 (D. Md. 1987)); see Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984) (“We use the term [“in limine”] in a broad sense to refer to any motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.”). “A district court's inherent authority to manage the course of its trials encompasses the right to rule on motions in limine.” Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 551 F.Supp.2d 173, 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

         “Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Levinson v. Westport Nat'l Bank, No. 3:09-CV-1955(VLB), 2013 WL 3280013, at *3 (D. Conn. June 27, 2013) (quoting Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F.Supp.2d 461, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)). Courts considering a motion in limine may reserve judgment until trial, so that the motion is placed in the appropriate factual context. See Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. L.E. Meyers Co. Grp., 937 F.Supp. 276, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

         Motion in Limine to Preclude Claims Barred By Absence of Damages Analysis [Doc. #78]

         Defendant seeks to preclude plaintiffs from presenting evidence or testimony relating to alleged damages that to date have never been articulated.

         Plaintiffs will produce their damages analysis to defendant on or before August 31, 2018, including any support for the categories of calculable loss set forth in their discovery responses. [See Motion in Limine Doc. #78 at 3-4; Pl. Resp. Doc. #97 at 1-3].

         Accordingly, a ruling on defendant's Motion in Limine [Doc. #78] is RESERVED.

         Motion in Limine to Preclude Expert Testimony and/or Reports [Doc. #79]

         Defendant moves to preclude any and all expert testimony or reports. Plaintiffs represent that they “have no intention of presenting expert testimony.” [Doc. #98 at 1].

         On this record, in light of plaintiffs' representation, defendant's Motion in Limine [Doc. #79] is GRANTED.

         Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Claims Barred By the Statute of Limitations [Doc. #80]

         Defendant moves to preclude plaintiffs from presenting any evidence or testimony relating to conduct alleged in the Complaint that is beyond the statute of limitations. Under Connecticut law, the statute of limitations that applies to plaintiffs' claims of intentional injury is three years. Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-577 (“No action founded upon a tort shall be brought but within three years from the date of the act or omission complained of.”). This action was instituted by service on the defendant on May 20, 2015. Defendant argues that any claims ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.