IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND
PEOPLE’S ALTERNATIVE SVC SYS, INC – Plaintiff
MAYOR, CITY OF BALTIMORE – Defendant
CASE NO. 24-C-02-00380
Plaintiff, People’s Alternative Service Systems, Inc.’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning the Activites of Plaintiff After the Relevant Events in this Case
Plaintiff, People’s Alternative Service Systems, Inc., by and through its undersigned counsel, moves in limine to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s that is extrinsic to the contracts that are the subject of this lawsuit. In support, Plaintiff states as follows:
Defendant has indicated that it may seek to introduce as the evidence regarding the activities of the Plaintiff since the contracts at issue were terminated. Plaintiff was and is a 501(c)(3) non-profit company. Since Defendant terminated its second contract with Plaintiff, it has not been able to procure significant grant money, thereby substantially limiting the scope and the breadth of its activities. Plaintiff believes that Defendant will seek to introduce this evidence in an effort to distract the jury from the relevant issues. This information is not relevant for the jury to make the determination as to whether this contract was breached and wrongfully terminated. Even if this Court were to find that this evidence was relevant, its prejudice far outweighed its probative value. The danger of this evidence is that the jury would award fewer damages because it does not believe that PASS continues to be an operation non-profit when in fact the opposite is true.
Accordingly, Plaintiff requests an order that Defendant is precluded from offering or seeking evidence of the activities and operations of Plaintiff after the City terminated it contract with PASS.
Miller & Zois, LLC
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
1 South St, #2450
Baltimore, MD 21202
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motions in Limine has been served upon the following counsel of record, via facsimile this 2nd day of September, ____:
Kurt Heinrich, Esquire
Baltimore City Law Department
100 N. Holliday Street, Room 108
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Attorney for Defendant
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
Comments on This MotionIn almost every personal injury case that goes to trial, both sides want to introduce evidence that might sway a jury but ultimately not relevant to the issues at hand in the case. Is such evidence admissible? It is always amazing how the answer to that question rests primarily with who the judge is that is trying your case. We have had cases where the judge said he almost declared a mistrial over evidence we have tried to introduce which that same evidence was easily admissible in another case. The key is to make sure you address the issue of the evidence you want to keep out before the case starts so the defense counsel cannot just slip it into the jury.