Opinion
Case No. 3:14-cv-243
08-06-2014
IN RE: BANKRUPTCY COURT RUTH A. SLONE Plaintiff, v. NANCY GOLDMAN, Defendant.
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING GOLDMAN'S OPPOSITION TO SLONE'S PROPOSAL TO ALLOW THE LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL MILLER
Adversary Proceeding No. 12-3079 from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, has been transferred to this Judge to conduct a trial. Pending in the Adversary Proceeding is an issue regarding the testimony of Michael Miller ("Miller").
The issue regarding the testimony of Miller will be treated by this Judge as a Motion In Limine and decided before trial. Plaintiff Ruth A. Slone proposes to allow Miller's lay witness testimony to establish the insolvency of the Debtor at all times relevant. Defendant Nancy Goldman ("Goldman") opposes this proposal.
The practice of ruling on motions in limine, although not specifically authorized by the Federal Rules of Evidence or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent authority to manage the conduct of trials. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4 (1984). The purpose of a motion in limine is to permit the Court to decide evidentiary issues in advance of trial in order to avoid delay and ensure an evenhanded and expeditious trial. See Indiana Insurance Co. v. General Electric Co., 326 F. Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004)(citing Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997)). Decisions on motions in limine may also save the parties time and cost in preparing for trial and presenting their cases.
Evidence is generally admissible if it is relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. Reed v. National Linen Service, No. 97-5545, 1999 WL 407463 at *7 (6th Cir. June 2, 1999). However, because it is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of evidence, a court is reluctant to grant broad exclusions of evidence in limine. Koch v. Koch Industries, Inc., 2 F. Supp.2d 1385, 1388 (D. Kan. 1998), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 203 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2000). A court will generally not grant a motion in limine unless the moving party meets its burden of showing that the evidence in question is clearly inadmissible. Indiana Insurance, 326 F. Supp.2d at 846. If this showing is not made, evidentiary rulings should be deferred and resolved in the context of the trial. Id.
Ultimately, whether a motion in limine is granted or overruled is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Hesling v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 64344 (5th Cir. 2005). The pending Motion In Limine will be addressed keeping in mind that the overruling of a motion in limine at this stage in the proceedings does not necessarily mean that the subject evidence will be admissible in the context of the trial.
Federal Rule of Evidence 701 provides that, if a "witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. See Lativafter Liquidating Trust v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., 345 F. Appx 46, 51(6th Cir. 2009).
In this case, both parties apparently agree that Slone must prove to a jury the insolvency of HG Worldwide during all times relevant. Goldman argues that proving the bankruptcy definition of insolvency requires expert testimony. However, she cites no caselaw in support of this argument. So, at this point, it is only an argument. The only current requirement is that the evidence of insolvency that Slone presents must be admissible pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Slone proposes to offer the testimony of Miller as a lay witness. Thus, Miller will be allowed to offer his opinions which are rationally based upon his perception, helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or a fact at issue and not based upon scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Also, Miller will be subject to cross examination. Finally, following the presentation all of her admissible evidence, whether or not Slone has satisfied the bankruptcy-law definition of insolvency at all times relevant will be a question for the Jury.
Goldman has not shown that Miller cannot testify as a lay witness. If there is a question about the admissibility of some of Miller's testimony, it will be decided in the context of the Trial of this matter.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio this Sixth Day of August, 2014.
s/Thomas M. Rose
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record