State Court Motion in Limine - Florida

MOTION IN LIMINE

(State of Florida — [Circuit / County] Court)

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. Certificate of Good-Faith Conference (if required)
9. Certificate of Service
10. Proposed Order

1. CAPTION

IN THE [CIRCUIT / COUNTY] COURT OF THE [________________] JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR [________________] COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No.: [________________]

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

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

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 above-entitled court, located at [Courthouse Address, City, Florida], 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]
[FLORIDA BAR NO. ________________]
[FIRM ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[TELEPHONE] | [FAX]
[EMAIL]
Attorneys for [Moving Party]

3. INTRODUCTION

[Moving Party] respectfully moves this Court, in limine and pursuant to the Florida Evidence Code, chapter 90, Florida Statutes, 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 or similar-fact evidence / inadmissible hearsay / barred by § 90.407 or § 90.408 / an improper reference to liability insurance / unreliable expert opinion under § 90.702 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 Florida Evidence Code, 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 (§§ 90.401, 90.402).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude [describe evidence]. "Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." § 90.401, Fla. Stat. All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by law; evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible. § 90.402, Fla. Stat. The challenged evidence has no tendency to prove or disprove any material fact because [explain], and should be excluded.

GROUND 2 — Unfair Prejudice / Confusion / Waste of Time (§ 90.403).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude [describe evidence] because, even if relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. Specifically, [explain the prejudice and why it substantially outweighs probative value].

GROUND 3 — Character Evidence and Similar-Fact / Collateral Crimes Evidence (§ 90.404).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude [describe evidence — e.g., prior bad acts, "other crimes, wrongs, or acts," reputation, or propensity evidence]. Evidence of a person's character or trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except as provided in § 90.404(1). Similar-fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible only when relevant to prove a material fact in issue — such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident — and is inadmissible when relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (the "Williams rule"). The challenged evidence is offered solely to suggest propensity and should be excluded.

GROUND 4 — Improper Impeachment by Conviction (§ 90.610).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude [describe evidence] as improper impeachment. A party may attack the credibility of a witness by evidence that the witness has been convicted only of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment exceeding one year, or a crime involving dishonesty or a false statement, subject to the limits and weighing required by § 90.610, Fla. Stat., and § 90.403.

GROUND 5 — Hearsay (§§ 90.801–90.806).
[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 (§ 90.801, Fla. Stat.) and are inadmissible (§ 90.802, Fla. Stat.) because no exception under § 90.803 or § 90.804 applies, and [address any hearsay within hearsay under § 90.805].

GROUND 6 — Subsequent Remedial Measures (§ 90.407).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude evidence of [describe repairs, design changes, policy changes, or other measures taken after the event]. Evidence of measures taken after an injury or harm caused by an event, which measures, if taken before the event, would have made injury or harm less likely to occur, is not admissible to prove negligence, the existence of a product defect, or culpable conduct in connection with the event. § 90.407, Fla. Stat. Such evidence is not offered for any permissible purpose here.

GROUND 7 — Compromise and Settlement (§ 90.408).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude evidence of [describe settlement offers, demands, or negotiations]. Evidence of an offer to compromise a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount, as well as any relevant conduct or statements made in negotiations concerning a compromise, is inadmissible to prove liability or absence of liability for the claim or its value. § 90.408, Fla. Stat.

GROUND 8 — Liability Insurance.
[Moving Party] moves to exclude any evidence, mention, or argument that [any party] was or was not insured against liability. Under Florida law, evidence of liability insurance is generally inadmissible to prove negligence or wrongful conduct and is subject to exclusion as unfairly prejudicial under § 90.403, Fla. Stat. Any reference to insurance, coverage, or an insurer would be unfairly prejudicial and is barred.

GROUND 9 — Unreliable Expert Testimony (§ 90.702; Daubert).
[Moving Party] moves to exclude the opinions of [expert name] regarding [subject]. Florida applies the Daubert standard for expert testimony. The Florida Supreme Court adopted the 2013 Daubert amendments to § 90.702, Fla. Stat., effective May 23, 2019. See In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107 (Fla. May 23, 2019) (superseding DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2018)). Under § 90.702, a qualified expert may testify only if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. The trial court serves as a gatekeeper and must ensure the testimony is both relevant and reliable, considering Daubert factors such as testing, peer review and publication, known or potential rate of error, and general 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 or financial 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 § 90.403, Fla. Stat.

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

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 Florida Evidence Code, chapter 90, Florida Statutes.

The foundational principle is relevance: all relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by law, and evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible. §§ 90.401, 90.402, Fla. Stat. Even relevant evidence "is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. The Code further restricts character and similar-fact evidence (§ 90.404), and excludes subsequent remedial measures (§ 90.407), compromise and settlement (§ 90.408), and hearsay not within a recognized exception (§§ 90.801–90.806).

Expert opinion is governed by § 90.702, Fla. Stat. Florida is a Daubert jurisdiction: the Florida Supreme Court adopted the 2013 Daubert amendments to § 90.702 effective May 23, 2019, in In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107 (Fla. May 23, 2019), superseding DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2018). The trial court serves as gatekeeper and must ensure that expert testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, and is reliably applied to the facts of the case.

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. CERTIFICATE OF GOOD-FAITH CONFERENCE

Pursuant to [applicable Local Rule / Administrative Order, if any], the undersigned certifies that on [__/__/____], counsel conferred with counsel for [opposing party] via [method] in a good-faith effort to resolve the matters raised in this Motion. [State outcome — e.g., "The parties were unable to resolve the issues presented herein."]

9. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion in Limine was filed using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal and served via the Portal's E-Service system in compliance with Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516(b)(1) on all counsel of record:

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

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

10. PROPOSED ORDER

IN THE [CIRCUIT / COUNTY] COURT OF THE [________________] JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR [________________] COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No.: [________________]

ORDER ON [MOVING PARTY]'S MOTION IN LIMINE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on [Moving Party]'s Motion in Limine. Having considered the Motion, any response, the record, argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 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.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at [________________] County, Florida, this ______ day of ________________, 20____.

______________________________
CIRCUIT / COUNTY JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

Sources and References

• Fla. Stat. §§ 90.401, 90.402, 90.403, 90.404, 90.407, 90.408, 90.610, 90.702, 90.801–90.806 — Online Sunshine, The 2025 Florida Statutes: https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/
• Fla. Stat. § 90.702 (Daubert; testimony by experts): https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.702.html
• In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107 (Fla. May 23, 2019) (adopting Daubert): https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/adoption-of-daubert-in-the-amendment-to-f-s-90-702-tightens-the-rules-for-admissibility-of-expert-witness-testimony/
• DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2018) (prior Frye decision — superseded)
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard
• Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.100 (motions): https://www.floridabar.org/rules/