Summary
denying defendant's motion in limine because it appeared "that this is a motion to dismiss a claim, rather than a motion in limine."
Summary of this case from Klingenberg v. Cnty. of MinnehahaOpinion
4:06CV01610-WRW.
April 23, 2008
ORDER
1. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Ralph Scott (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED.
2. Defendant's Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 58) is DENIED.
3. Defendant's Motion in Limine re Fraud (Doc. No. 59) is DENIED, since it appears to me that this is a motion to dismiss a claim, rather than a motion in limine.
4. Defendant's Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 61) is DENIED as to Sections 2, 3, and 4. There is no ruling on Section 1, at this time, because I don't understand the objection.
5. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 64) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Section 1 is denied. Section 2 is granted, unless a proper foundation is laid. Section 3 is denied as moot, based on Defendant's response. Section 4 is taken under advisement — if Defendant has other grounds, it must immediately disclose them to Plaintiff. Regarding Section 5, I intend to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law regarding expert testimony.
IT IS SO ORDERED.