Or I should say as much as Magistrate Judge O'Sullivan?
Courts disfavor motions in limine. Id. (citation omitted). “[A]dmissibility questions should be ruled upon as they arise at trial. Accordingly, if evidence is not clearly admissible, evidentiary rulings must be deferred until trial to allow questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice to be resolved in context.” Id. (citation omitted)(emphasis in original). “[E]ven if nothing unexpected happens at trial, the district judge is free, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling.” Luce, 469 U.S. at 41.So they are basically losers and time-wasters unless it's obviously inadmissable in which case you could move to exclude the evidence with an ore tenus motion at trial anyway.
Ahh, but what about "educating the judge"?
Be careful what you wish for, because you may have educated the judge to deny it again, having already denied it once.
What say you?