From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wall v. Speedway, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION
Dec 4, 2018
CAUSE NO.: 1:17-CV-34-TLS (N.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2018)

Opinion

CAUSE NO.: 1:17-CV-34-TLS

12-04-2018

MARC WALL and TONYA WALL, Plaintiffs, v. SPEEDWAY, LLC, Defendant.


OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's, Speedway, LLC, Motion in Limine [ECF No. 27], filed on November 27, 2018.

Federal Rule of Evidence 104 mandates that the Court decide any preliminary question regarding the admissibility of evidence. Motions in Limine to exclude evidence prior to trial are subject to a rigorous standard of review by the trial court. Courts may bar evidence in limine "only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." Dartey v. Ford Motor Co., 104 F. Supp.2d 1017, 1020 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (quoting Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Techs., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993)). If evidence does not meet this standard, "evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy, and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context." Id. (quoting Hawthorne, 831 F. Supp. at 1400). Often, the "better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence as they arise, presenting the issues in a specific context, rather than excluding broad categories of evidence prior to trial." United States v. Phillips, No. 1:12-CR-872, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79916 *5-6 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2014) (internal quotations omitted).

A court's rulings in limine are preliminary in nature and subject to change. In this Order the Court is not making final determination on the admissibility of evidence. The Court reserves the right to change these rulings during the trial should the Court find that the evidence or arguments at trial justify such change.

The Defendant filed the instant Motion in Limine seeking to exclude, "Any testimony or opinion that when plaintiff reported the incident to representatives of Speeedway, they were unconcerned, uncooperative or uncaring." (Mot. in Lim,. at 1.) On December 3, 2018, during the Final Pre-Trial Conference [ECF No. 28], the Plaintiffs noted that they had no objection to the Defendant's Motion.

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Defendant's Motion in Limine [ECF No. 27].

SO ORDERED on December 4, 2018.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

Wall v. Speedway, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION
Dec 4, 2018
CAUSE NO.: 1:17-CV-34-TLS (N.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2018)
Case details for

Wall v. Speedway, LLC

Case Details

Full title:MARC WALL and TONYA WALL, Plaintiffs, v. SPEEDWAY, LLC, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

Date published: Dec 4, 2018

Citations

CAUSE NO.: 1:17-CV-34-TLS (N.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2018)