Sample Motions In Limine
Below are sample motions in limine we have filed in our personal injury cases. These may help you if presented with an issue in your motion in limine similar to the one presented in our case.
Our lawyers have deleted the name of the client, court, or witnesses in specific instances for confidentially. (Some of our clients have also kindly agreed to allow us to include their names.) The substance of the motion in limine remains intact.
Miller & Zois is committed to the continued education of other personal injury attorneys who are fighting on behalf of injured clients. If you have any motions that you believe would be of assistance to other attorneys representing injured victims, please forward them to us, and we will, if appropriate, put them up here.
You can also find other sample motions in tort cases and even more motions in limine here.Expert Related Motions in Limine
- Exclude Cumulative Expert Testimony: defense counsel - malpractice lawyers in particular - love to put on multiple experts to say the same thing and you should file a motion in limine to push back
- Preclude Defendant's Experts
- Exclude Opinion Testimony
- To Prevent Defendant's Expert from Contending Your Client Is a Malingerer or Liar
- Asserting Maritial Privilege
- Stop Doctor from Testifying as an Expert
- Response to Motion in Limine to Exclude/Limit Expert's Opinion
- Opposition to Motion in Limine to Allow Defendants to Not Identify the Uninsured Motorist Carrier
- Exclude contributory negligence argument at trial (or comparative negligence)
- Subsequent Remedial Measures
- Fact Witness
- Evidence Relating to Plaintiff's Arrest
- Immigration Status (a big one in 2022)
- Evidence of Plaintiff's Abuse (and Lies About) the Use of Prescription Drugs
- Exclude Unsupported Documentation of Machine Readings
- Activities of Plaintiff After the Relevant Events in the Case
- Property Damage to the Vehicles
- Type of Motorcycle in the Collision
- Other Parties Sued
- Consent Form in Malpractice Claim
- Defendant's Response [Select here]
- Prevent the Defendant from Proffering Inconsistent Evidence at Trial
- Exclude Prior Safe Use of the Product
- Malpractice Claim to Exclude Prior Lawsuits Against Doctor
- Exclude Lies and Other Bad Acts Related to the Use of Prescription Drugs as a Result of a Truck Accident
- Contents of Decedent's Will in a Wrongful Death/Survival Action Car Accident Case
- Ad Damnum Clause
- Preclude Defendant's Experts
- Plaintiff's Video Animation (opposition to the hospital's motion)
- Preclude doctor testifying against a nurse
- Preclude expert testifying about future surgeries
- Preclude evidence defendant driver was underinsured or even mentioning uninsured motorist carrier
- Motion to exclude videos depicting a below-knee amputation
- Motion to exclude evidence of hospital protocols in a malpractice case
The phrase in limine in Latin means "on the threshold." A motion in limine is used to prohibit or limit certain testimony or evidence at trial. A motion in limine in a personal injury case is a motion typically made before the trial starts but can be made at any time before or during a trial.
In what situation is a motion in limine appropriate? You should file a motion in limine if you believe there is evidence the defendant might introduce a trial that could be objected to at trial because it is incompetent or irrelevant. A motion in limine is also appropriate if you believe the evidence that the defendant might want to introduce at trial is unduly prejudicial to your client.
In most courts, lawyers must file any motion within fifteen days before trial. The deadline will be set either by rule or by the scheduling order. Many judges view motions in limine as a form of a preliminary injunction. In other words, the moving party would be irreparably harmed by waiting for an in-trial objection - after the cat is already out of the bag in a sense. It also just makes the trial go smoother to resolve these issues up front. (Smooth trials are generally better for the plaintiff.)
Consequently, the standard for granting such relief in Maryland is whether any reference to the evidence the moving party seeks to exclude is so prejudicial that the nonmoving party may not refer to it. This is particularly important if you do not want defense counsel referencing the evidence at issue in the defendant's opening statement (where an objection is more difficult).
Lawyers must also remain mindful of the scope of the relief sought and should reflect that request in a draft order for the trial court's signature. The order must contain language that is narrowly tailored to the inappropriate evidence. Judges are reticent to exclude broad categories of evidence but may be more receptive to a more narrow request.
If you are on the losing side of the court's ruling to exclude evidence, it is important to remember that, unlike many judicial orders, orders in limine are interlocutory and not final decisions on the admissibility of evidence. Accordingly, it is not inappropriate to request a reversal or modification of a prior ruling, particularly if the request is based on a different presentation of evidence than the trial court was led to believe would be presented. In fact, these arguments often need to be raised again because a denial does not always preserve the record for appeal, particularly if the argument is the judge's chambers.
A motion in limine is a general motion filed just before the start of a trial. A motion in limine usually asks the trial judge to make evidentiary rulings (e.g., exclude evidence, limit testimony) for the upcoming trial.
The type of relief that can be requested in a motion in limine varies from state to state, but usually, a motion in limine is limited to evidentiary issues regarding witness testimony or documents in the upcoming trial.
The trial judge can rule on motions in limine before the start of the trial or during the trial as issues arise. For example, if a motion in limine seeks to exclude certain evidence, the judge can grant the request before trial or wait and see what develops before ruling on the admissibility issue.