Friday, May 3, 2013

If You Can't Explain Your In Limine Motion Simply, It is Not Likely to Be Granted.



Here's an interesting standard Judge King lays out for an in limine motion -- if you can't explain it simply to the Court pretrial, it's not something the Court should be ruling on pretrial:
In limine consideration of arguments and evidence relating to the Defendants' "strategic planning and strategic planning documents'' is equally misplaced. One need look no further than Defendants' memorandum (pp. 6-10 - D.E. #84) to quickly discern that the complexities of even describing this issue to the Court pretrial renders it not a matter which should be considered in limine. Experienced trial counsel, and certainly the Court, can envision perhaps a half a dozen ways in which these matters might be relevant during the trial presentation of evidence. Counsel will have the full opportunity to make whatever objection they wish to make - materiality, relevancy, work product, etc. - if, and when, the evidence is sought to be presented.
Simplify, simplify, simplify!

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Joint FAIL by Podhurst + Greenberg.

Anonymous said...

Happy Friday, SFL!

Bob Becerra said...

Judge King does not favor motions in limine---EVER.

Sean Valjean said...

This is great. One of the things that has been really beneficial about my experience where I am with lawyers calgary is that they do present everything so simply and help me understand what exactly is going on which really inspires a lot of confidence.