A Sample Motion in Limine: Defense Version

Here's a motion in limine from an old case in which I assisted in representing the defendant. I've omitted the case style and other identifying features; obviously, each case is different, and I'm posting this for illustrative purposes only.

Tomorrow I'll post a plaintiff's motion in limine.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE

COMES NOW Defendant, XXXX, and requests this Court to enter an Order in Limine, to prevent any discussion in opening statement, questioning of witnesses or in argument concerning any of the following matters:

1. Testimony by Plaintiff's expert that the Decedent’s fall from an x-ray table caused an injury to her brain, or that her mental status deteriorated after the fall. It is expected that XXX will speculate, as he did in his deposition, that "probably the fall to the floor injured [decedent’s] head, her brain." This is mere conjecture and is not competent expert testimony. [case citations omitted].

2. That Decedent had a “tendency to fall.” It is expected that Plaintiff will argue that Defendant should have been aware of an alleged "tendency" to fall on the part of Decedent. It is Plaintiff's theory that prior alleged falls should have put Defendant on notice about the possibility that Decedent might fall from an x-ray table. However, any previous falls, to the extent that they happened, were related to other medical conditions that were cured. Such falls therefore are not probative on the issue of whether Decedent might fall from an x-ray table. As such, this evidence would be misleading, confusing, irrelevant, and prejudicial.

3. Evidence of medical bills for the costs of Decedent’s final cancer admission. It is expected that Plaintiff will seek to recover the cost of Decedent’s final hospital admission for cancer in which she died during surgery. However, these medical expenses were not caused by the alleged tortious act of the Defendant. In order to recover medical expenses, there must be a provable causative link between the tortious act and the medical expense. [Citation omitted].

4. The relative disparity in the wealth of the parties.

5. Out-of-court statements by Defendant's agents or others if used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. [citations omitted]. Based on plaintiff's interrogatory answers, it is expected that YYYY might testify about two hearsay statements. [statements omitted]. Both of these statements, and any similar statements, are inadmissible hearsay.

6. Any expert testimony by persons other than XXXXX, plaintiff's only designated expert.

7. Any reference to alleged psychological problems or damages suffered by Plaintiff, as such would be irrelevant to any damages recoverable in this action. [citation omitted].

8. Any evidence of subsequent remedial measures, as such are prohibited as proof of antecedent negligence or as an admission of guilt. [Citation omitted].

9. Any reference to a need to punish Defendant, send Defendant a message or similar comments because such would be irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.

WHEREFORE, Defendant XXXX respectfully requests of the Court an order directing Plaintiff, through his counsel, not to mention, refer to or interrogate concerning, or voluntarily answer or attempt to convey before the jury, at any time during these proceedings in any manner, either directly or indirectly, the subject matters as stated above, and to instruct the parties to warn and caution all witnesses to follow these instructions.

Comments

[R]

"COMES NOW"? Shows what a special, special writer the author is. Surely, with such a command over the language, he must win.

LOOK AT THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS:

1. Now comes the above-named John Smith, plaintiff herein, by and through Darrow & Holmes, his attorneys of record, and shows unto this honorable Court as follows:

2. For his complaint, plaintiff says:

JUDGES CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE

Michigan judges preferred version 2 by 84 percent to 16 percent.(1) When the same survey was sent to Florida judges, 88 percent preferred the simpler version.(2) Judges in Louisiana and Texas have also replied to the same survey; again, about 75 percent preferred the simpler version in court documents.(3)

1. Steve Harrington and Joseph Kimble, Survey: Plain English Wins Every Which Way, 66 Mich. B.J. 1024, 1026 (1987).

2. Barbara Child, Language Preferences of Judges and Lawyers: A Florida Survey, 64 Fla. B.J. 32, 34 (Feb. 1990).

3. Joseph Kimble and Joseph A. Prokop, Jr., Strike Three for Legalese, 69 Mich. B.J. 418, 420 (1990); Kevin Dubose, The Court Has Ruled, The Second Draft (Legal Writing Institute), Oct. 1991, at 8, 8.

[bittrsweet]

I'm in law school at University of Miami and they teach us version one, as bulky as it is. Nor have I, in the three internships I've had, ever read a motion that has not gone that route. Certain parts of the lawyering game just involve tradition.

[tammy]

This case is not referenced with any other ruled cases. I know this is not how I have to write my motion.

[Shjucky]

Heh, it's always funny to see people try to "modernize" legalese.