Imagine the plaintiff in a lawsuit is seeking compensatory damages for a whiplash injury he suffered as a result of the defendant rear-ending him with his car.
During the discovery process, the defendant’s attorney requests the plaintiff’s medical records. While these records shed light on the nature of the plaintiff’s alleged injury, they also show that the plaintiff has been battling severe arthritis for years.
The plaintiff’s attorney files a motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to the plaintiff’s arthritis from being admitted at trial, stating that this evidence is not only irrelevant but could unfairly sway the jury.
The defendant’s attorney, however, disagrees. She files an opposition to the motion in limine, stating that the evidence is relevant. She argues that evidence of the plaintiff’s arthritis should be admissible since the condition can sometimes affect the neck, which is also what a whiplash injury affects. She believes the evidence could cast doubt on the veracity of the plaintiff’s personal injury claims and demonstrate that the plaintiff’s injuries were preexisting.
After reviewing both parties’ filings, the judge grants the in limine motion. While it cedes the evidence would have been relevant had it shown the plaintiff’s preexisting condition affecting his neck, it only shows the condition affecting his hands and knees. Hence, the judge precludes the irrelevant evidence from being admitted at trial.
It’s easy to see how evidence of the plaintiff’s arthritis could have placed him at a disadvantage during trial had the judge denied the in limine motion. The defendant’s attorney could have argued that damages should not be awarded to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff’s injury could be due to his arthritis and not the car accident.
Evidence is at the heart of every lawsuit. It’s why parties win lawsuits. It’s also why parties lose lawsuits. When evidence is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, improper or otherwise inadmissible, it could adversely influence jurors by misleading them, distracting them from the key issues of a lawsuit, or causing them to react emotionally rather than logically.
While discovery allows parties to access a broad spectrum of evidence, motions in limine enable them to challenge the admissibility of that evidence before trial. In essence, motions in limine serve to refine the evidence that can be presented at trial so the fairness and integrity of the trial process is maintained.
Although it may be tempting to file a motion in limine anytime evidence comes to light that is unfavorable to you, this is not a good strategy. Remember, the purpose of evidence is to sway a jury. Filing a motion in limine is only appropriate when evidence could unfairly sway the jury.
(Wondering about motion in limine’s pronunciation? It is pronounced in-ˈlē-mi-ˌne.)
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Motion in Limine: Meaning
A motion in limine asks the judge to exclude or limit irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, improper or otherwise inadmissible evidence or arguments from being introduced or made at trial.
In some cases, a motion in limine can be affirmative. In other words, it can ask the judge to allow certain evidence to be introduced at trial.
Evidence can shape trials, affecting everything from their direction and scope to their length and complexity. Given this impact, it’s essential for the judge to regulate the admissibility of evidence. Motions in limine provide judges with the means to exercise this control, making them a common tool in both civil and criminal cases. However, for the purposes of this post, we will primarily focus on civil motions in limine.
It’s important to remember that motions in limine rulings are non-final. To put it another way, they can be modified during trial should the need arise.
Unlike most court motions in California, which are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, motions in limine aren’t governed by a specific statute. Rather, several sections of the Evidence Code are relevant to in limine motions.
Who Can File a Motion in Limine?
Given the benefits of in limine motions, it’s natural to wonder about who can file them.
Are motions in limine reserved for plaintiffs? Are motions in limine reserved for defendants? Can both parties utilize motions in limine?
Discover the answers to these questions in the following sections.
Can a Plaintiff File a Motion in Limine?
A plaintiff has the right to file a motion in limine. When a plaintiff files a motion in limine, it’s typically to prevent the defense from introducing evidence that could unjustly undermine the credibility of their claims.
Consider a plaintiff who is claiming she was wrongfully terminated by her former employer for being pregnant. Aware the defense might introduce evidence to show the plaintiff had been terminated from multiple jobs in the past, her attorney files a motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to her prior employment history from being introduced at trial. Agreeing that the plaintiff’s employment history is irrelevant to her discrimination claim, the judge grants the plaintiff’s motion in limine.
In this in limine motion example, had the judge denied the motion, the defense could have used her employment history to argue she was terminated for poor job performance rather than her pregnancy. This could have skewed the jury’s perception of the facts, creating bias against the plaintiff and diverting focus from her discrimination claim.
Can a Defendant File a Motion in Limine?
A defendant has the right to file a motion in limine. When a defendant files a motion in limine, it’s typically to prevent the plaintiff from introducing evidence that could unduly tilt the jury in their favor.
Let’s revisit the previous motion in limine example. Although the plaintiff is still claiming wrongful termination due to pregnancy, there is a slight variation in the evidence. This time, the plaintiff has evidence the employer previously terminated other employees and settled wrongful termination claims brought by those employees. The plaintiff seeks to admit this evidence to show the employer has a pattern and practice of wrongfully terminating employees and later paying those employees settlements to avoid trial. The defense files a motion in limine to exclude the evidence related to the prior wrongful termination claims, arguing that evidence of prior settlements is not relevant in determining whether the plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in this case. Acknowledging the possible prejudicial effect of this evidence, the judge grants the defendant’s motion in limine.
Had the judge denied the defendant’s motion, the defense could have still managed to successfully challenge the plaintiff’s claim using other evidence. However, by granting the motion, the judge effectively bolstered the defense’s position.
When Is a Motion in Limine Filed?
Because there are no universal guidelines for motions in limine, it’s common for every jurisdiction and judge to establish their own. For this reason, clarifying the particulars of the motion in limine process with the judge presiding over your case is essential.
In general, motions in limine are filed after the discovery process on the eve of trial — although specific deadlines and procedures can vary by jurisdiction and courtroom. Guidelines are established to ensure the judge has sufficient time to carefully examine the motion to determine whether the evidence at issue should be excluded or admitted.
To preserve the fairness of trial and minimize disruptions, attempting to resolve evidentiary issues before trial is almost always the best course of action. That said, it may not always be possible to preemptively address all evidentiary issues, as some will emerge during trial. When this happens, a motion in limine can still be requested to exclude or admit certain evidence.
According to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1112 (f), motions in limine can be filed before or during trial, and they don’t have to be accompanied by a notice of hearing. In the following sections, we’ll explore the implications of filing an in limine motion before trial versus during trial.
Before Trial
The majority of in limine motions are filed before trial — usually after the discovery process has concluded. The reason for this is simple: it is at this point that both parties will have a clear understanding of the evidence that might be presented at trial.
Filing a motion in limine before trial is a proactive approach for addressing potential evidentiary issues. By resolving these issues early, the jury can be shielded from exposure to problematic evidence. This not only helps ensure the fairness of trial is maintained, but it also makes for a more efficient trial process.
During Trial
It’s generally more common to file in limine motions before trial when doing so is possible. However, motions in limine can be useful to make during trial as well in certain situations, so long as the court allows it.
Perhaps a witness seems incoherent or mentally unsound. Perhaps a witness is attempting to recount another person’s version of events. Perhaps evidence that hadn’t been disclosed during discovery is being introduced at trial.
All of the circumstances mentioned above would be valid grounds for requesting an in limine motion during trial. During trials, motions in limine are typically made orally, as opposed to filed. Arguments opposing the motion also are typically made orally. Both parties should be prepared to present their reasons for requesting or opposing the in limine motion to the court. They also should be equipped with evidence to support their positions.
Keep in mind that some judges require the parties to file formal in limine motions during trial. For this reason, it’s crucial to clarify with the judge what their expectations are surrounding in limine motions before trial begins.
What Is the Purpose of a Motion in Limine?
The most common purpose of a motion in limine is to manage the evidence that can be presented at trial.
While a motion in limine might ask for relevant evidence to be admitted to trial, it more commonly asks for evidence that is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, improper or otherwise inadmissible to be excluded.
Imagine you are a juror in a medical malpractice lawsuit where the plaintiff’s legal team is presenting patient reviews of the defendant as evidence of his lack of competence. Arguing that the reviews should be excluded since they were submitted online and have not been verified, the defense objects to the evidence. The judge sustains the objection, striking the evidence from the record and instructing the jury to disregard it. However, as a jury member, would it be possible for you to wipe this evidence from your memory?
The dilemma described above epitomizes why motions in limine are so important. Jurors cannot “unsee” or “unhear” evidence, no matter how forcefully a judge instructs them to do so, which is why insulating the jury from problematic evidence from the onset is generally a better option. This is exactly what motions in limine are designed to do.
In the following sections, we discuss the purpose of in limine motions in more detail.
It Weighs the Probative Value of Evidence Against its Prejudicial Impact
You cannot get around the fact that most of the evidence presented at trial will be prejudicial to one party. If it weren’t, the evidence likely wouldn’t be presented. What isn’t acceptable is presenting evidence that is unfairly prejudicial.
According to Evidence Code section 352:
“The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.”
This important statute allows the court to exclude evidence if it determines the potential harm of presenting the evidence would outweigh the potential usefulness of the evidence in proving or refuting the claims being litigated. The statute also allows the judge to exclude evidence that would require an excessive amount of time to present, unfairly bias the jury against one party, create confusion around the key issues of the case or mislead the jury into reaching the wrong verdict.
It Helps Maintain a Fair Trial
A strategy attorneys may use to sway a jury is to attack the opposing party’s character. For instance, the defense might try to introduce evidence of the plaintiff’s prior civil lawsuits to paint them as overly litigious or greedy, which could unfairly influence the jury and divert attention from the plaintiff’s actual claims.
In this type of case, the plaintiff’s attorney would likely file a motion in limine to exclude any reference to the plaintiff’s previous lawsuits, arguing that this evidence is irrelevant and could unfairly prejudice the jury.
By preventing the introduction of biased or irrelevant evidence, motions in limine help safeguard the fairness of the trial process, ensuring that the jury focuses solely on the facts that are directly related to the case.
It Helps Facilitate a Smoother Trial
Objections can be raised during trial for a variety of reasons, but one of the most common is the introduction of problematic evidence during trial. Although objections play an important role in the trial process, they can disrupt the flow of a trial, causing delays and complications.
By addressing evidentiary issues before trial, motions in limine can prevent unnecessary disruptions during trial, resulting in a simpler, smoother and more efficient trial process.
It Helps Narrow the Scope of a Trial
Evidence is a critical element — if not the critical element — of every trial. It should go without saying that it can have a profound impact on the direction and outcome of a case.
When irrelevant, prejudicial or otherwise inadmissible evidence is introduced at trial, it risks expanding the scope of the trial and diverting the jury’s attention from the key issues of the lawsuit.
A motion in limine works to prevent this by excluding any evidence that distracts from the central focus of the case before it’s had a chance to reach the jury. This ensures that when the jury deliberates, they will be clear on the evidence and claims in the lawsuit and can decide the case accordingly.
What Are Acceptable Grounds for a Motion in Limine?
If you foresee evidentiary issues adversely impacting the fairness or efficiency of the trial in which you’re involved, you may have grounds for filing a motion in limine.
The truth of the matter is that most litigants whose cases go to trial will be faced with evidence that is unfavorable to them. You cannot file a motion in limine to exclude evidence solely on the basis of its unfavorability. The judge will only grant your in limine motion if you can demonstrate how the evidence in question might unfairly prejudice the jury against you should it be presented at trial.
In the following sections, we discuss the most common grounds for filing motions in limine.
Unduly Prejudicial Evidence
Unduly prejudicial evidence is so contentious or emotionally charged that it’s likely to unfairly sway the jury in one party’s favor.
Remember, Evidence Code section 352 allows a judge to exclude evidence if it appears its probative value is less than its prejudicial impact.
It’s important to note that unduly prejudicial evidence can be relevant. In other words, if a judge excludes evidence for being unduly prejudicial, it’s not necessarily because the evidence has no bearing on the lawsuit’s claims. Rather, it’s because there is potential for the evidence to taint the jury’s perception of the facts, which ultimately could lead to a misguided verdict.
Because unduly prejudicial evidence tends to evoke strong emotions or biases among jurors, it can be extremely damaging to a party if not timely addressed. Ideally, a motion in limine to exclude unduly prejudicial evidence should be filed prior to trial for this reason.
Irrelevant Evidence
Irrelevant evidence does not relate to the issues being litigated. It has the potential to not only confuse the jury but to distract the jury from the key issues of the lawsuit as well — which may be precisely why a party might have tried to introduce this type of evidence in the first place.
According to Evidence Code section 350:
“No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.”
It should go without saying that the more evidence that is admitted to trial, the longer the trial will generally be. Long trials are not problematic in themselves. They, however, are problematic if they are long because of a proliferation of irrelevant evidence, which could result in court’s and parties’ time and resources being wasted.
When it’s possible irrelevant evidence could be introduced at trial, filing a motion to exclude irrelevant evidence may be necessary to ensure the evidence doesn’t detract from the focus of the lawsuit.
Inappropriate Character Evidence
Inappropriate character evidence carries no relevance in a lawsuit and concerns a party’s negative personality traits, bad reputation or past conduct. The California Evidence clearly sets forth when character evidence can be used and when it can’t.
According to Evidence Code section 1101:
“(a) Except as provided in this section and in Sections 1102, 1103, 1108, and 1109, evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.
(b) Nothing in this section prohibits the admission of evidence that a person committed a crime, civil wrong, or other act when relevant to prove some fact (such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or whether a defendant in a prosecution for an unlawful sexual act or attempted unlawful sexual act did not reasonably and in good faith believe that the victim consented) other than his or her disposition to commit such an act.
(c) Nothing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence offered to support or attack the credibility of a witness.”
This statute forbids character evidence from being introduced to argue a party acted a particular way during a specific incident (with limited exceptions). For example, a plaintiff can’t argue a defendant most likely breached their contract because they have a bad reputation in professional circles.
The statute also identifies situations in which introducing character evidence may be appropriate. For example, it states that it may be appropriate to introduce evidence of a person’s past actions if doing so would help explain key facts, such as motive, intent or knowledge.
It goes on to state that it would not be appropriate to introduce character evidence for the purpose of demonstrating a party is of bad character.
The statute, notably, does not preclude character evidence from being introduced to support or undermine the credibility of a witness.
Speculative Evidence
Technically, speculative evidence cannot be referred to as evidence, since it is a conclusion or notion that is based on a statement of what evidence would have shown had it been gathered. However, because the evidence had not been gathered, it doesn’t exist. Speculative evidence is problematic because it’s not based on facts.
According to Evidence Code section 800:
“If a witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is permitted by law, including but not limited to an opinion that is:
(a) Rationally based on the perception of the witness; and
(b) Helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony.”
Suppose the defendant’s friend provides deposition testimony in a personal injury lawsuit. He states that he did not witness the accident, but that, in his opinion, the defendant must have been driving below the speed limit because he is usually a safe driver. This would be considered speculative evidence, since the witness’s testimony is not rationally based upon facts that he actually perceived related to the accident. In such an instance, if the plaintiff lists the friend as a trial witness, the defense could file a motion in limine in advance of trial to exclude his testimony about the accident.
Although objections can be raised during trial when attorneys or witnesses speculate, it is ideal for speculative evidence to be excluded prior to trial using an in limine motion to ensure it does not unduly influence the jury.
Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence refers to statements made outside of court by someone other than the testifying witness. Because the credibility of the statements cannot be established without the person who made the statements being present, hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible at trial.
That said, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule. The specific conditions that might make hearsay evidence admissible in civil lawsuits can be found in Evidence Code sections 1220 – 1227.
According to Evidence Code section 1200:
“‘Hearsay evidence’ is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.
(b) Except as provided by law, hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
(c) This section shall be known and may be cited as the hearsay rule.”
Suppose a witness provides deposition testimony in a wrongful termination lawsuit. He states that the word around the office is that the defendant, the plaintiff’s former employer, fired the plaintiff for her religious affiliations. This would be considered hearsay evidence, since it could not be verified without gathering the testimony of everyone who worked in the office.
When hearsay evidence arises, a motion in limine for hearsay should be filed immediately to exclude the evidence, as it tends to not only be inadmissible, but if included, could adversely influence the jury.
Privileged Evidence
Privileged evidence generally cannot be admitted to trial because it includes information that is protected by privilege. In other words, privileged information is protected from being used in court. To discover the specific information California regards as privileged, refer to Evidence Code sections 900 – 1070.
Suppose a company is being sued for breach of contract. During discovery, the opposing party uncovers email correspondence between company executives and their legal counsel surrounding the alleged breach of contract. The evidence suggests the company was aware of its breach and attempted to hide it. The plaintiff may try to introduce the email correspondence as evidence to support their position, but since the correspondence is likely protected by attorney-client privilege, it may be inadmissible.
When there is a possibility of privileged information — such as communication between spouses, attorneys and clients, and doctors and patients — being presented at trial, it’s crucial an in limine motion to exclude the evidence be filed to ensure it remains private.
Confirmation of Admissible Evidence
When certain evidence is so crucial to a party’s case, but there are disputes surrounding it, their attorney may file a motion in limine to confirm the admissibility of the evidence in advance of trial to ensure it can be presented at trial without objections.
As discussed in a prior section, a party’s criminal record generally can’t be admitted if it’s being used to degrade the party’s character, reputation or past acts. However, suppose a defendant is being sued for defrauding a senior citizen out of tens of thousands of dollars. If the defendant has a criminal record consisting of other acts of fraud, introducing this evidence could be useful in proving the defendant more likely than not defrauded the plaintiff. For this reason, filing a motion in limine to admit the evidence would be recommended in such a situation.
Confirming the admissibility of relevant evidence that either is or may be regarded as controversial or irrelevant by the opposing party by filing a motion in limine can enable you to preemptively address the potential objections of the opposing party and prove why the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial impact. It will also help you gain a clearer understanding of the type of evidence the court is willing to admit to trial so you can build your case accordingly.
Improper Expert Testimony
Improper expert testimony refers to testimony provided by an expert witness that fails to meet the legal standards for admissibility, such as the testimony being relevant, based on reliable methods and facts, comprehensible by a jury, and within the scope of the expert’s experience, knowledge or training.
According to Evidence Code section 801:
“If a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is:
(a) Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact; and
(b) Based on matter (including his special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education) perceived by or personally known to the witness or made known to him at or before the hearing, whether or not admissible, that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which his testimony relates, unless an expert is precluded by law from using such matter as a basis for his opinion.”
In essence, the statute says that expert witness testimony is only admissible if it addresses a subject that goes beyond common knowledge and would assist the court in understanding the facts of the case. It goes on to state that the expert’s opinion must be grounded in their specialized field or on information that professionals in that field typically rely on, even if that information is not directly admissible in court.
Suppose a forensic accountant is providing expert testimony in a fiduciary misconduct case involving a trustee accused of misappropriating trust assets. If the accountant testifies that the trustee likely misappropriated assets but admits that the data she relied upon was hearsay evidence provided by an unreliable third party, it may be proper to file a motion in limine to exclude her testimony.
While expert testimony can play a crucial role in clarifying complex facts or evidence for the jury, it can also unfairly skew the trial, particularly if the methods used by the witness were flawed or unreliable. Ensuring that only well-founded expert opinions are presented can help maintain fairness in the trial process.
Evidence Violates Discovery Rules
When evidence violates discovery rules, it means a party failed to disclose relevant evidence or witnesses to the opposing party during the discovery process, presumably to conceal information or witnesses that could be used against them at trial. Discovery rule violations can not only result in the evidence at issue being excluded from trial, but it can result in sanctions on the party responsible for the violation. In severe cases, discovery rule violations may even lead to an outright dismissal of the case or a mistrial.
Suppose the plaintiff in a lawsuit is suing the defendant for an alleged breach of contract that caused the plaintiff financial harm. As a part of the discovery process, both parties were required to produce all evidence in their possession that was relevant to the lawsuit, including financial records and email communication. However, at the start of the trial, the defendant introduces new email evidence that hadn’t been disclosed during discovery. In response, the plaintiff files a motion in limine to exclude evidence not produced in discovery.
In this instance, the plaintiff was right to try to have this evidence excluded from trial since its introduction was a surprise. The evidence placed the plaintiff at a major disadvantage, since the plaintiff did not have the opportunity to review the evidence in advance or prepare a rebuttal to it.
Discovery rules exist for a reason: they prevent one or both parties from being ambushed with new evidence during trial. Cases are prepared and built well in advance of trial; therefore, introducing new evidence after a trial has already started can derail a party’s case and cause them to have to form an entirely new strategy, which isn’t fair.
Although the court will occasionally make exceptions for the introduction of new evidence during trial, it’s unlikely exceptions will be made for evidence that was deliberately withheld. If evidence that should have been disclosed during discovery is introduced during trial, it is crucial to file a motion in limine to exclude the evidence not produced in discovery to ensure the evidence doesn’t place you at a disadvantage.
Potential Outcomes of in Limine Motions
Once the judge has thoroughly reviewed a motion in limine and the opposition to the motion, it will issue a ruling. Its ruling will be based on whether the evidence at issue is relevant to the lawsuit, and if so, whether its probative value exceeds its prejudicial effects.
In the following sections, we briefly discuss the potential outcomes of in limine motions and their implications.
Motion in Limine Is Granted in Part
When a court partially grants a motion in limine, it typically means that some of the evidence requested in the motion has been excluded, while other evidence has been admitted. By making this distinction, the judge acknowledges that the moving party’s arguments have merit but also recognizes that not all the evidence in question is irrelevant or inadmissible.
In its ruling, the court will specify which pieces of evidence are excluded and which are admitted, providing clarity to the parties. This will help the parties understand the trial’s direction and devise their legal strategies accordingly.
While it may seem simpler for evidence to be classified as either admissible or inadmissible, the court adopts a more nuanced approach to evidentiary issues for good reason. Given that evidence can significantly influence a trial — sometimes unfairly — it’s essential for the court to carefully evaluate it before making a decision on its exclusion or admission. When the judge admits some evidence and excludes other evidence, it reflects their commitment to preserving the fairness and integrity of the trial.
Motion in Limine Is Denied
When a judge denies a motion in limine, it typically means that the evidence in question will be allowed to be presented at trial. By denying the motion, the judge is suggesting that the evidence should be presented at trial.
It’s important to note that rulings on motions in limine are not always final. If evidence that was initially admitted appears to be irrelevant or unduly prejudicial as the trial unfolds, you can request that the court revisit the motion in limine to consider excluding that evidence.
What Is the Motion in Limine Process in California?
The motion in limine process in California is designed to provide parties with ample time before trial to request the exclusion or admission of specific evidence.
As mentioned earlier, motions in limine are not governed by a specific statute. Rather, the guidelines for filing them tend to vary by local jurisdiction and judge. For this reason, it’s crucial to familiarize yourself with the motion in limine procedures applicable in your area early in the litigation process to avoid missing any essential deadlines or procedural requirements.
Since our probate litigation firm is located in Los Angeles, we will outline the motion in limine process specific to this jurisdiction. However, regardless of where your case is being heard, we strongly recommend that you verify the applicable motion in limine guidelines. You can do this by consulting directly with the presiding judge or your attorney.
1. In Limine Motion is Prepared and Filed
First, ensure that the grounds for your motion in limine are valid. Ask yourself whether you are seeking to exclude evidence solely because it is unfavorable to you or because it could unfairly influence the jury. Only if it is the latter should you move forward with drafting your in limine motion.
Next, prepare your motion by clearly articulating the specific evidence you wish to exclude, the grounds for exclusion, and any supporting arguments. When applicable, referencing relevant statutes and case law can strengthen your motion.
Remember that motions in limine must be accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities. This memorandum should provide clear citations of legal authorities, statutes, case law and supporting evidence. The memorandum cannot exceed 15 pages.
Before filing your motion, both your legal counsel and that of the opposing party must meet and confer in an effort to resolve the evidentiary issues informally. If you are unable to reach a resolution through this process, then you may proceed with filing your motion in limine.
Unlike other motions, motions in limine do not need to be noticed. They do, however, need to be filed by the motion in limine deadline, which is at least five court days prior to the final status conference, per Los Angeles County Court Rule 3.25 (f)(3). The judge usually will hear in limine motions on the first day of trial.
A final status conference is a meeting held no more than 10 days prior to the trial date, which the parties’ lead counsel may be required to attend to assess the likelihood of a settlement, ensure trial readiness, and address any lingering concerns or issues that could affect the flow of the trial, among other things.
2. Opposition to the Motion In Limine is Prepared and Filed (If Applicable)
If the opposing party has filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence that could be advantageous to your case, you may want to challenge that motion by submitting an opposition. Your opposition should clearly articulate your reasons for opposing the motion and cite evidence that supports the admissibility of the challenged evidence.
It is required that you prepare a memorandum of points and authorities to submit alongside your opposition. This memorandum should be clear and concise, not exceeding 15 pages. Clearly outline your grounds for opposing the motion and reference relevant legal authorities, facts, and case law to strengthen your argument. Avoid vague statements.
Before filing your opposition, it’s essential for your legal counsel to meet and confer with the opposing party’s counsel to try to resolve the evidentiary issues informally first. Only if these discussions do not lead to a resolution should you proceed with filing a formal opposition to the motion in limine.
The deadline for filing an opposition to a motion in limine is no less than five court days before trial, per the Los Angeles Superior Court’s final trial preparation guide.
3. Motion In Limine Hearing is Held
In Los Angeles, there is no such thing as a motion in limine hearing, per se. Rather, motions in limine are heard by the judge at the start of a trial.
By the time the judge hears motions in limine, they will have reviewed the evidence at issue, the motion itself, the opposition to the motion (if one had been filed) and any supporting evidence.
It will issue rulings on the evidence at issue, allowing it to be admitted at trial or excluding it from trial. There’s also the possibility the court will grant the motion conditionally or partially. It will come down to whether the evidence at issue meets the legal standards for admissibility described in the California Evidence Code.
As the trial progresses and new information emerges, there may be opportunities to revisit these motions, allowing the court to reconsider previously granted motions or reassess those that were denied.
In summary, while the court’s rulings on motions in limine are typically established prior to trial, they remain flexible and can be adjusted as circumstances evolve.
4. Motion In Limine is Enforced During Trial (If Applicable)
If the court grants an in limine motion, excluding certain evidence from being presented at trial, the parties must abide by the court’s decision. In other words, they cannot proceed to introduce evidence that was deemed as being inadmissible.
Should a party defy the court and move forward with presenting excluded evidence, the consequences could be devastating. Not only could the offending party’s credibility be undermined in the minds of the jurors, but the court could impose sanctions on them, which range from financial penalties to legal repercussions.
In cases where excluded evidence has irreparably prejudiced the jury, the judge may opt to altogether dismiss the lawsuit or declare a mistrial, since preserving the fairness of trial would no longer be plausible.
For this reason, obeying the court’s evidentiary rulings is crucial, regardless of whether or not you agree with the court. If the circumstances of the case change over the course of trial, you can always ask the court to revisit the in limine motions. However, defying a court order is never the best approach if you’re hoping for a favorable outcome at trial.
How Do in Limine Motions Compare to Other Motions?
Motions in limine are easy to differentiate from other motions because they strictly concern the admissibility of evidence, which is a factor in almost every trial. Although similar motions do exist to motions in limine, there are notable differences between them that make them impossible to conflate.
In the following sections, we go over some of the motion types that are comparable to in limine motions, and discuss the similarities and differences between them.
Motion in Limine vs. Motion to Suppress
A motion to suppress aims to specifically exclude evidence that was secured through illegal means, such as by violating a party’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure. Because motions to suppress primarily are used to protect parties’ constitutional rights, it’s more common for them to be filed in criminal cases than in civil cases.
A motion in limine is much broader in scope than a motion to suppress. It assesses the relevance, propriety and prejudicial effect of evidence to determine whether the evidence should be admitted to trial or excluded. A motion to suppress, on the other hand, assesses how evidence was obtained, and whether the method used to obtain the evidence was legal.
Whereas motions in limine are can be filed before trial or during trial by either party, motions to suppress are generally only filed before trial by the defense, since their aim is to prevent the prosecution from presenting illegally obtained evidence.
Daubert Motion vs. Motion in Limine
A Daubert motion is a type of motion in limine, although it is only used at the federal level. Whereas motions in limine broadly consider the admissibility of all types of evidence in state trials, Daubert motions narrowly consider the admissibility of expert witness testimony in federal trials.
Daubert motions are based on what is known as the “Daubert standard.” This standard sets forth the criteria for assessing whether the testimony provided by an expert witness is scientifically sound and relevant. In essence, the purpose of a Daubert motion is to preclude “junk science” from being presented at trial.
Whereas Daubert motions are almost always filed prior to trial when expert testimony is being secured through depositions and other means, motions in limine can be filed before trial or during trial.
In California, the standard used to determine the admissibility of expert testimony at the state level is the Frye standard, which gauges the admissibility of expert testimony based on whether it adheres to generally accepted scientific principles.
FAQs: Motions in Limine
We hope our guide on in limine motions has provided you with the information you need to effectively navigate these important evidentiary motions. If you continue to have questions, consider referring to our frequently asked questions below or reaching out to our firm directly by filling out our Contact Us form.
How do you make a motion in limine during trial?
If you are seeking to exclude evidence or admit new evidence during trial using a motion in limine, you generally will need to make oral arguments to the judge outside the presence of the jury to do so. The opposing party can oppose a motion in limine in the same way.
It is important to clarify your jurisdiction’s guidelines and procedures for filing motions in limine during trial, as some jurisdictions do require that a formal motion be prepared and filed.
Regardless of whether you present your motion orally or in writing, it must be accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities that clearly outlines the evidence you are seeking to have excluded from trial or admitted, your legal grounds for seeking this, and any evidence you have to support your position.
What happens if a motion in limine ruling is defied during trial?
As discussed previously, defying a motion in limine ruling can have serious consequences. At the very least, it could result in you being admonished by the court. At most, it could cause the trial to be dismissed or declared a mistrial.
Most commonly, when a motion in limine ruling is deliberately defied, leading to excluded evidence being presented during trial, the court will impose sanctions on the offending party and instruct the jury to disregard the evidence at issue.
What is an omnibus motion in limine?
An omnibus motion in limine addresses multiple evidentiary issues in a single filing. This can help streamline the motion in limine process for the court, allowing it to address a range of evidentiary objections and requests by reviewing only one document.
Although some jurisdictions or judges may prefer omnibus motions in limine, the Los Angeles Superior Court prefers for motions in limine to be filed individually. This is yet another reason it is crucial to understand the motion in limine guidelines that are applicable to you. The last thing you’d want is for your motion to be denied for a trivial error.
Is a Daubert motion a motion in limine?
Yes, a Daubert motion is a type of motion in limine. However, unlike motions in limine, which are used to determine the admissibility of all types of evidence in state trials, Daubert motions are used only to determine the admissibility of expert witness testimony in federal trials.
What is a reptile theory motion in limine?
Parties in a lawsuit may make what are known as “reptile theory” arguments during trial, which essentially are arguments that are designed to appeal to jurors’ emotions — particularly to their most basic instincts for survival and safety — to secure larger verdicts.
By stoking jurors’ fear of potential future harm and urging jurors to consider community safety instead of the merits of the case at hand, reptile theory arguments are often inflammatory and poignant. This can cause them to be unfairly prejudicial, with jurors even desiring to punish the defendant to protect themselves and the community at large.
Hence, if the prejudicial effect of a reptile theory argument outweighs its probative value, filing a reptile theory motion in limine to exclude the evidence is crucial in maintaining the integrity and fairness of the trial.
Reptile theory arguments are most often used in personal injury and product liability lawsuits, since the defendants in these types of lawsuits are prone to being portrayed as menaces to society.
As compelling as reptile theory arguments may be, they distract from the key issues of the case and sometimes even mislead jurors, causing them to react from emotion rather than according to the rules of the court.
Is a motion in limine a dispositive motion?
No, a motion in limine is not a dispositive motion. For a motion to be dispositive, it must aim to resolve a lawsuit, or any part of a lawsuit, without trial.
A motion in limine concerns the admissibility of evidence. Although motion in limine rulings can impact the shape and direction of a lawsuit, they generally don’t dispose of a lawsuit.
Motions for summary judgment and demurrers are examples of dispositive motions. Because both of these motions, through different means, dispose of an entire lawsuit or certain claims within a lawsuit, they are considered dispositive motions.
Can a motion in limine be filed in a bench trial?
Yes, motions in limine can be filed in a bench trial, but they tend to be much more useful to file in a jury trial, since bench trials will be presided over by the same judge who will hear the in limine motions.
Although motions in limine can be used in bench trials to help the judge manage the evidence that will be presented, they are more commonly used in jury trials to prevent the jury from being adversely influenced by the introduction of problematic evidence.
How is a federal motion in limine different from a state motion in limine?
The purpose of federal motions in limine is identical to the purpose of state motions in limine. Namely, both state and federal motions aim to resolve evidentiary issues prior to trial.
Whereas federal courts tend to have universal guidelines for in limine motions, state court guidelines for motions in limine tend to vary by jurisdiction and judge.
Facing litigation challenges? We can help.
If you’re involved in a lawsuit, you’re likely familiar with how overwhelming the litigation process can be. Without the right support, it can feel like managing a full-time job, with challenges at every turn.
Litigation is filled with potential pitfalls and complexities, which is why it’s crucial to have a trusted litigation firm like Keystone Law Group by your side. The right firm can help reduce both the time and financial burden of litigation, while also ensuring your case is resolved fairly and efficiently.
At Keystone, our probate litigation expertise runs deep. We know the litigation process inside and out and use every tool available to achieve the best outcomes for our clients.
Although Keystone doesn’t accept non-probate clients, we would be happy to refer you to a firm that is suitable to your needs should you need help that we can’t offer. Whether you are a client or not, we aim to make your legal journey easier.
Call us today to discover how we can help you. We look forward to connecting.
