United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
B. FITZSIMMONS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
are defendant's Motions in Limine. [Doc. #78, 79, 80, 81,
82, 83, 84, 85].
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.
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).
in Limine to Preclude Claims Barred By Absence of Damages
Analysis [Doc. #78]
seeks to preclude plaintiffs from presenting evidence or
testimony relating to alleged damages that to date have never
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].
a ruling on defendant's Motion in Limine [Doc.
#78] is RESERVED.
in Limine to Preclude Expert Testimony and/or Reports [Doc.
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].
record, in light of plaintiffs' representation,
defendant's Motion in Limine [Doc. #79]
in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Claims Barred By the
Statute of Limitations [Doc. #80]
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 ...