Opinion
No. 04 Civ. 2744 (VM)(KNF).
December 9, 2005
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Before the Court are motions in limine made by defendants Nam-Hi Lee and Myung-Hi Lee. Through these motions, the defendants seek to have the plaintiffs precluded from offering into evidence, at the trial of this action, writings and testimony that these defendants believe are the product of material "stolen from defendant Dr. Nam Hi Lee, M.D." The plaintiffs oppose the motions. They contend that the motions should be denied, in part, because they are premature and should be made only after the parties have completed their pretrial discovery activities. The plaintiffs also contend that the motions should be denied because the defendants failed to submit a memorandum of law in support of their respective motions, as required by Local Civil Rule 7.1 of this court.
A federal district court "has the power to exclude evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. . . . Unless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context." Hawthorne Partners v. ATT Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993).
In the case at bar, the motions in limine made by the two defendants identified above are vague in that they do not specify the writings or potential testimony that the movants believe should be excluded from the trial of this action. As a result, the Court is unable to determine, with any degree of certainty, whether the writings and testimony sought to be excluded from the trial would be inadmissible under any of the provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Therefore, the respective motions in limine are denied. However, the defendants are free to renew their respective motions in limine at the time of trial should they believe that a valid basis exists for excluding any evidence that the plaintiffs seem likely to offer at the trial of this action.
The Court has previously made all parties aware of the obligation of complying with Local Civil Rule 7.1 of this court.See the Order of the Court dated February 22, 2005. The parties are reminded that the willful failure to submit a memorandum of law with a motion may be deemed sufficient cause for the denial of the motion. Inasmuch as no memorandum of law was submitted with either of the above-noted motions in limine, which are dated after February 22, 2005, the failure to submit memoranda with the motions is another ground on which the motions are denied.
SO ORDERED.