Summary
denying motion in limine without prejudice where the court found the motion to be premature given the fact that the case was still in its early stages, discovery was not complete, and dispositive motions had not yet been filed
Summary of this case from Cruz v. United Auto. Workers Union Local 2300Opinion
05 Civ. 5906 (SHS) (HBP).
February 21, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By notice of motion dated December 17, 2005 (Docket Item 14), plaintiff moves in limine to exclude evidence of his criminal record. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied without prejudice to renewal in the pretrial order.
Motions in limine are most frequently addressed by the judicial officer who will try the case, shortly before the commencement of trial. Deferring consideration of motion in limine until that time makes sense for a number of reasons. First, if summary judgment is granted for one of the parties, it will probably be unnecessary to address the motion in limine. Second, by the eve of trial, frivolous claims or defenses have most often been eliminated through motion practice or agreement, stipulations of fact are frequently made, the nature of the evidence to be offered will generally be known and the contours of the actual trial are more well defined. Having this additional information permits the trial judge to render a more well-informed decision regarding whether a particular item of evidence is probative or unduly prejudicial or whether the facts necessary to establish the foundation for an item of evidence can be established.
This case is still in its early stages. Discovery is not yet complete and dispositive motions have not yet been made. In view of the fact that so little is currently known about what the trial will ultimately look like, I conclude that consideration of plaintiff's motion in limine is premature at this time.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning his criminal record is denied without prejudice to renewal in the pretrial order.
SO ORDERED.