State Court Motion in Limine - District of Columbia

MOTION IN LIMINE

(Superior Court of the District of Columbia — Civil Division)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Notice of Motion and Hearing
3. Introduction
4. Motion in Limine
5. Evidence Sought to Be Excluded — Grounds and Argument
6. Legal Standard
7. Rule 12-I Certification
8. Requested Relief (Admonition of Counsel and Witnesses)
9. Certificate of Service
10. Attachment A — Proposed Order

1. CAPTION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION

Case No.: [________________]

[MOVING PARTY]'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE [SUBJECT OF MOTION]

Judge: Hon. [________________]
Hearing Date: [________________]
Hearing Time: [________________]
Courtroom: [________________]

2. NOTICE OF MOTION AND HEARING

TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on [Hearing Date] at [Hearing Time], or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in [Courtroom] of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, located at [Courthouse Address, Washington, D.C.], before the Honorable [Judge Name], [Moving Party] will, and hereby does, move this Court in limine for an order excluding the evidence, testimony, argument, and references described below, and prohibiting any mention of such matters before the jury until the Court rules on their admissibility outside the presence of the jury.

DATED: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: ______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[D.C. BAR NO. ________________]
[FIRM ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[TELEPHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorneys for [Moving Party]

3. INTRODUCTION

[Moving Party] respectfully moves this Court, in limine, for an order excluding the categories of evidence identified below before they are offered, mentioned, or alluded to at trial. A motion in limine permits the Court to rule on admissibility in advance so that inadmissible and prejudicial matter is never placed before the jury and cannot be cured by a later instruction to disregard. As set forth below, the challenged evidence is [irrelevant / unfairly prejudicial / inadmissible character evidence / inadmissible hearsay / barred as a subsequent remedial measure, compromise, or liability-insurance reference / unreliable expert opinion under Rule 702 and Motorola v. Murray / improper "golden rule" or sympathy argument], and its admission would substantially prejudice [Moving Party] and confuse the issues before the jury.

4. MOTION IN LIMINE

[Moving Party], by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court for an order in limine excluding the evidence, testimony, argument, and references described in Section 5 below, and prohibiting any mention of such matters before the jury until the Court rules on their admissibility outside the presence of the jury. This Motion is based on the evidentiary principles applied in the courts of the District of Columbia, the pleadings and record on file, and any further argument presented at or before the hearing.

5. EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE EXCLUDED — GROUNDS AND ARGUMENT

GROUND 1 — Irrelevant Evidence (Rules 401–402).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude [describe evidence]. Evidence is relevant only if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 401. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Rule 402. The challenged evidence has no bearing on any element, claim, or defense in this action because [explain], and should be excluded.

GROUND 2 — Unfair Prejudice / Confusion / Waste of Time (Rule 403).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude [describe evidence] because, even if marginally relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Rule 403. Specifically, [explain the prejudice and why it dwarfs any probative value].

GROUND 3 — Character Evidence and Prior Bad Acts (Rule 404).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude [describe evidence — e.g., prior arrests, prior lawsuits, "other acts," reputation, or propensity evidence]. Evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. Rule 404(a). Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show conduct in conformity, and is admissible, if at all, only for a permissible non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Rule 404(b). The challenged evidence is offered solely to suggest propensity and should be excluded.

GROUND 4 — Improper Impeachment by Character or Conviction (Rules 608–609).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude [describe evidence] as improper impeachment. Specific instances of a witness's conduct may not be proved by extrinsic evidence to attack credibility except as permitted by Rule 608. Evidence of a prior conviction is admissible for impeachment only as permitted by Rule 609 and D.C. Code § 14-305, and is subject to exclusion under Rule 403.

GROUND 5 — Hearsay (Rules 801–807).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude [describe out-of-court statements / documents] as inadmissible hearsay. The statements are out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (Rule 801) and are inadmissible (Rule 802) because no exception under Rule 803, 804, or 807 applies, and [address any double hearsay under Rule 805].

GROUND 6 — Subsequent Remedial Measures (Rule 407).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude evidence of [describe repairs, design changes, policy changes, or other measures taken after the event]. When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction. Rule 407. Such evidence is admissible, if at all, only for another purpose (e.g., impeachment or, if disputed, ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures), none of which is genuinely at issue here.

GROUND 7 — Compromise and Settlement (Rule 408).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude evidence of [describe settlement offers, demands, or negotiations]. Evidence of furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept — valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a disputed claim is not admissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of the claim, and conduct or statements made during compromise negotiations are likewise inadmissible. Rule 408.

GROUND 8 — Liability Insurance (Rule 411).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude any evidence, mention, or argument that [any party] was or was not insured against liability. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. Rule 411. Any reference to insurance, coverage, or an insurer would be unfairly prejudicial and is barred.

GROUND 9 — Unreliable Expert Testimony (Rule 702; Motorola v. Murray).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude the opinions of [expert name] regarding [subject]. The District of Columbia has adopted Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert reliability standard for expert testimony, abandoning the former Dyas/Frye "general acceptance" test. See Motorola, Inc. v. Murray, 147 A.3d 751 (D.C. 2016) (en banc). The trial court acts as a gatekeeper and must determine that the expert is qualified; that the testimony will assist the trier of fact; that it is based on sufficient facts or data; that it is the product of reliable principles and methods; and that the witness has reliably applied those principles and methods to the facts of the case. The challenged opinions fail this standard because [identify the deficiency — e.g., unreliable or untested methodology, lack of peer review, excessive error rate, analytical gap between data and opinion, ipse dixit, or lack of fit to the facts].

GROUND 10 — "Golden Rule," Sympathy, and Improper Appeals to Passion or Prejudice.
[Moving Party] moves to preclude counsel from making any "golden rule" argument (asking jurors to place themselves in the position of a party), any appeal to the jurors' personal interests, or any argument calculated to inflame passion, sympathy, or prejudice rather than to address the evidence. Such argument is improper and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.

GROUND 11 — [Additional Category].
[Moving Party] moves to exclude [describe additional evidence and cite the governing principle].

6. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion in limine is a recognized procedural device by which a party seeks a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence so that prejudicial or inadmissible matter is excluded before it reaches the jury. The Superior Court has broad discretion to control the admission of evidence. The District of Columbia has not enacted a codified evidence code; its trial courts apply common-law evidentiary principles that parallel the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The foundational principle is relevance: relevant evidence is generally admissible, and irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Rules 401–402. Even relevant evidence may be excluded where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Rule 403. D.C. courts likewise restrict propensity character evidence (Rule 404), and exclude subsequent remedial measures (Rule 407), compromise and settlement (Rule 408), liability insurance (Rule 411), and hearsay not within a recognized exception (Rules 801–807).

Expert opinion is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 as adopted by the District of Columbia. In Motorola, Inc. v. Murray, 147 A.3d 751 (D.C. 2016) (en banc), the D.C. Court of Appeals abandoned the Dyas/Frye "general acceptance" test and adopted Rule 702 and the Daubert reliability standard. The trial court serves as gatekeeper and must ensure that expert testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.

7. RULE 12-I CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12-I(a), the undersigned counsel certifies that, before filing this Motion, counsel [conferred / attempted in good faith to confer] with counsel for [opposing party] on [__/__/____] in an effort to resolve the matters raised herein. [State outcome — e.g., "Opposing counsel opposes the relief requested." / "The parties were unable to resolve the issues."]

8. REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, [Moving Party] respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order:

1. GRANTING this Motion in Limine and EXCLUDING the categories of evidence, testimony, argument, and references identified above;
2. PROHIBITING all counsel, parties, and witnesses from offering, mentioning, referring to, or alluding to the excluded matters — directly or indirectly — in the presence of the jury, including during voir dire, opening statements, examination of witnesses, and closing argument;
3. DIRECTING counsel to instruct and admonish their respective witnesses, before they testify, not to mention, refer to, or volunteer any of the excluded matters in the presence of the jury;
4. REQUIRING that, before any party seeks to offer or reference any excluded matter, counsel first approach the bench and obtain a ruling outside the presence of the jury; and
5. GRANTING such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

9. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion in Limine and Proposed Order was served via [CaseFileXpress / e-service / first-class mail] upon the following counsel of record:

[Opposing Counsel Name]
[Firm Name]
[Address]
[City, State ZIP]
[Email]

______________________________
[Attorney Name]
[D.C. Bar No. ________________]

ATTACHMENT A — PROPOSED ORDER

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION

Case No.: [________________]

ORDER ON [MOVING PARTY]'S MOTION IN LIMINE

Upon consideration of [Moving Party]'s Motion in Limine, any opposition thereto, the entire record herein, and for good cause shown, it is this ______ day of ________________, 20____,

ORDERED that the Motion is:

☐ GRANTED. The categories of evidence identified in the Motion are EXCLUDED, and all counsel, parties, and witnesses are prohibited from mentioning, referring to, or offering such matters in the presence of the jury without first obtaining leave of Court outside the jury's presence; and it is further

☐ GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: [________________________________]; and it is further

☐ DENIED.

______________________________
Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Copies to: All counsel of record via CaseFileXpress.

Sources and References

• Motorola, Inc. v. Murray, 147 A.3d 751 (D.C. 2016) (en banc) (adopting Fed. R. Evid. 702 / Daubert; abandoning Dyas/Frye): https://ncji.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Motorola-Inc.-v.-Murray_-147-A.3d-751.pdf
• Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C. 1977) (former expert-admissibility test — superseded)
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard
• Federal Rules of Evidence 401–411, 608, 609, 702, 801–807 (applied in D.C. as common law): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
• Superior Court Civil Rules 7, 12-I (motions; conferral): https://www.dccourts.gov/superior-court/civil-division
• D.C. Code § 14-305 (impeachment by conviction): https://code.dccouncil.gov/