State Court Motion in Limine - Delaware

MOTION IN LIMINE

(State of Delaware — [Superior Court / Court of Chancery / Court of Common Pleas])

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. Requested Relief (Admonition of Counsel and Witnesses)
8. Rule 11 Certification
9. Certificate of Service
10. Exhibit A — Proposed Form of Order

1. CAPTION

IN THE [SUPERIOR COURT / COURT OF CHANCERY / COURT OF COMMON PLEAS]
OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR [________________] COUNTY

C.A. No.: [________________]

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

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

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/Chambers] of the above-entitled court, located at [Courthouse Address, City, Delaware], 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]
[DELAWARE BAR NO. ________________]
[FIRM ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[TELEPHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorneys for [Moving Party]

3. INTRODUCTION

[Moving Party] respectfully moves this Court, in limine and pursuant to the Delaware Rules of Evidence, 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 by D.R.E. 407, 408, or 411 / unreliable expert opinion under D.R.E. 702 and the Daubert standard / 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 Delaware Rules of Evidence, 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 (D.R.E. 401–402).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude [describe evidence]. Evidence is relevant only if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." D.R.E. 401. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. D.R.E. 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 (D.R.E. 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, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. D.R.E. 403. Specifically, [explain the prejudice and why it dwarfs any probative value].

GROUND 3 — Character Evidence and Prior Bad Acts (D.R.E. 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 action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. D.R.E. 404(a). Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove character 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. D.R.E. 404(b). The challenged evidence is offered solely to suggest propensity and should be excluded.

GROUND 4 — Improper Impeachment by Character or Prior Conviction (D.R.E. 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 D.R.E. 608. Evidence of a prior conviction is admissible for impeachment only as permitted by D.R.E. 609 and is subject to exclusion under D.R.E. 403.

GROUND 5 — Hearsay (D.R.E. 801–806).
[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 (D.R.E. 801) and are inadmissible (D.R.E. 802) because no exception under D.R.E. 803 or 804 applies, and [address any double hearsay under D.R.E. 805].

GROUND 6 — Subsequent Remedial Measures (D.R.E. 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. D.R.E. 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 (D.R.E. 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. D.R.E. 408.

GROUND 8 — Liability Insurance (D.R.E. 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 on the issue of whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. D.R.E. 411. Any reference to insurance, coverage, or an insurer would be unfairly prejudicial and is barred.

GROUND 9 — Unreliable Expert Testimony (D.R.E. 702; Daubert / Bowen).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude the opinions of [expert name] regarding [subject]. D.R.E. 702 closely tracks the federal rule, and Delaware has adopted the Daubert standard and its progeny. See In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Litigation, No. 255, 2024 (Del. July 10, 2025); Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 906 A.2d 787 (Del. 2006); M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513 (Del. 1999). The proponent must establish admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court acts as a gatekeeper and must determine that the expert is qualified; that the testimony is relevant and reliable — that is, based on sufficient facts or data, the product of reliable principles and methods, and reliably applied to the facts of the case; and that the testimony will assist the trier of fact without causing unfair prejudice. The Court may consider Daubert factors such as testing, peer review, error rate, and acceptance in the relevant scientific community. The challenged opinions fail this standard because [identify the deficiency — e.g., unreliable or untested methodology, 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 D.R.E. 403.

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

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 trial court has broad discretion to control the admission of evidence under the Delaware Rules of Evidence.

The foundational principle is relevance: relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise provided, and irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. D.R.E. 401–402. Even relevant evidence may be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." D.R.E. 403. The Rules further bar propensity character evidence (D.R.E. 404), subsequent remedial measures (D.R.E. 407), compromise and settlement (D.R.E. 408), and liability insurance (D.R.E. 411), and they exclude hearsay not within a recognized exception (D.R.E. 801–806).

Expert opinion is governed by D.R.E. 702, which closely tracks the federal rule. Delaware adopted the Daubert standard and its progeny as the law governing the admissibility of expert evidence. See In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Litigation, No. 255, 2024 (Del. July 10, 2025); Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 906 A.2d 787 (Del. 2006); M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513 (Del. 1999). The trial judge serves as gatekeeper, and the proponent bears the burden of establishing the rule's sufficiency and reliability requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.

7. 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.

8. RULE 11 CERTIFICATION

In accordance with [Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. / Del. Ch. Ct. R.] 11, the undersigned counsel certifies that to the best of counsel's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, this Motion is well-grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and is not interposed for any improper purpose.

9. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], a copy of the foregoing Motion in Limine and all accompanying papers was served via [File & ServeXpress / e-Filing / hand delivery / first-class mail] upon the following counsel of record:

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

______________________________
[Attorney Name]
[Delaware Bar No. ________________]

EXHIBIT A — PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER

IN THE [SUPERIOR COURT / COURT OF CHANCERY / COURT OF COMMON PLEAS]
OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR [________________] COUNTY

C.A. No.: [________________]

ORDER ON [MOVING PARTY]'S MOTION IN LIMINE

AND NOW, this ______ day of ________________, 20____, the Court having considered [Moving Party]'s Motion in Limine, any opposition thereto, the authorities cited, and the entire record in this action, IT IS HEREBY 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.

☐ GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: [________________________________].

☐ DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________
[Vice Chancellor / Judge] [NAME]

Sources and References

• Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence (D.R.E.) 401–403, 404, 407, 408, 411, 608, 609, 702, 801–806 — official rules PDF: https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=39388
• In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Litigation, No. 255, 2024 (Del. July 10, 2025) — official opinion: https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=382080
• Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 906 A.2d 787 (Del. 2006)
• M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513 (Del. 1999) (adopting Daubert under D.R.E. 702)
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard
• Delaware Expert Witness Admissibility (Daubert overview): https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/delaware-expert-witness-admissibility-rules/