State Court Motion in Limine - Michigan

MOTION IN LIMINE

(State of Michigan — [Circuit Court / District Court] for the County of [________________])

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Notice of Motion and Hearing
3. Motion in Limine
4. Evidence Sought to Be Excluded

5. Brief in Support
   5.1 Introduction
   5.2 Legal Standard
   5.3 Argument — Grounds for Exclusion
   5.4 Request to Instruct and Admonish

6. Request for Oral Argument

7. Affirmation of Concurrence Effort
8. Conclusion and Relief
9. Signature Block
10. Proof of Service
11. Exhibit 1 — Proposed Order

1. CAPTION

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE [CIRCUIT COURT / DISTRICT COURT] FOR THE COUNTY OF [________________]

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 counsel may be heard, in [Courtroom] of the above-entitled court, located at [Courthouse Address, City, Michigan], before the Honorable [Judge Name], [Plaintiff / Defendant] [Moving Party Name] ("Movant") will, and hereby does, move this Court in limine, pursuant to MRE 401-403 and the additional authorities below, for an order before trial precluding the opposing party, its counsel, and its witnesses from offering, mentioning, referring to, or eliciting the evidence and argument identified herein, in the presence of the jury or the prospective jurors.

This Motion is based on this Notice, the accompanying Brief in Support, the Michigan Rules of Evidence, the pleadings and records on file, any attached exhibits, and such argument as may be presented at the hearing.

DATED: [________________]

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: ______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME] (P[________________])
[FIRM ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[TELEPHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorneys for [Moving Party]

3. MOTION IN LIMINE

[Moving Party Name] ("Movant"), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to MRE 401, 402, and 403 and the additional rules cited below, respectfully moves this Court for an order in limine ruling, before any such evidence is offered, displayed, or mentioned at trial, that the matters described in Section 4 are inadmissible and shall be excluded. A motion in limine permits the Court to resolve admissibility outside the presence of the jury so that prejudicial matter never reaches the jurors, sparing the parties from reliance on curative instructions that may be inadequate. In support, Movant relies on the accompanying Brief in Support.

4. EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE EXCLUDED

Movant seeks an order excluding the following categories of evidence, testimony, argument, and reference (select and complete each applicable item; renumber as needed):

☐ (a) [Describe specific evidence/testimony/exhibit].
☐ (b) [________________________________].
☐ (c) [________________________________].
☐ (d) [________________________________].
☐ (e) [________________________________].

5. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION IN LIMINE

5.1 Introduction

This case is scheduled for trial on [__/__/____]. Movant anticipates that the opposing party will attempt to introduce the matters identified in Section 4, none of which is admissible under the Michigan Rules of Evidence. Because even the mention of these matters before the jury would cause unfair prejudice that no instruction could fully cure, Movant asks the Court to rule on admissibility now, in limine, and to instruct counsel and witnesses accordingly.

5.2 Legal Standard

Relevance — MRE 401, 402. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. MRE 401. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. MRE 402.

Unfair Prejudice — MRE 403. 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. MRE 403.

Character and Other Acts — MRE 404. Evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity therewith; evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove propensity, though it may be admissible for another purpose (e.g., motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, scheme, plan or system, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident). MRE 404(b); see People v. VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52 (1993). Impeachment by character for truthfulness and by prior convictions is governed by MRE 608 and 609.

Subsequent Remedial Measures — MRE 407. Evidence of measures taken after an injury or harm that would have made it less likely to occur is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect, or a need for a warning or instruction.

Compromise Offers and Negotiations — MRE 408. Evidence of furnishing, offering, or accepting a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim, and statements made in compromise negotiations, is not admissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim.

Liability Insurance — MRE 411. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.

Hearsay — MRE 801 et seq. Out-of-court statements offered for their truth are inadmissible unless they fall within an exclusion or exception.

Expert Testimony / Reliability — MRE 702; MCL 600.2955; DAUBERT. A qualified expert may testify only if the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, and the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. MRE 702. By statute, a scientific opinion is not admissible unless the court determines it is reliable and relevant after considering the seven factors in MCL 600.2955 (testing/replication; peer review and publication; generally accepted standards; known or potential error rate; general acceptance in the relevant expert community; reliability of the basis and whether experts rely on the same basis; and use outside the litigation context). Michigan has adopted the Daubert standard, and the trial court's "gatekeeping role" requires it to ensure that any expert testimony admitted is reliable. Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 470 Mich. 749 (2004). A trial court may neither abandon this obligation nor perform it inadequately.

Golden Rule / Sympathy / Improper Argument. Argument inviting jurors to place themselves in a party's position ("golden rule"), or appealing to passion, prejudice, sympathy, or community sentiment rather than the evidence, is improper and should be precluded.

5.3 Argument — Grounds for Exclusion

GROUND 1 — Irrelevant Evidence (MRE 401, 402). The evidence described in Section 4[____] has no tendency to make any fact of consequence more or less probable, because [________________________________], and is therefore inadmissible.

GROUND 2 — Unfair Prejudice Substantially Outweighs Probative Value (MRE 403). Even if marginally relevant, the evidence in Section 4[____] should be excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and waste of time. Specifically, [explain why no limiting instruction would cure the harm: ________________________________].

GROUND 3 — Improper Character / Other Acts (MRE 404, 608, 609). The evidence in Section 4[____] is offered only to suggest that [party/witness] acted in conformity with a character trait or other act and is inadmissible propensity evidence serving no permitted MRE 404(b) purpose; any impeachment use is barred or limited by MRE 608-609 because [________________________________].

GROUND 4 — Inadmissible Hearsay (MRE 801 et seq.). The statement(s) in Section 4[____] are out-of-court statements offered for their truth and fall within no exclusion or exception. [Identify statement and declarant: ________________________________].

GROUND 5 — Subsequent Remedial Measures (MRE 407). The evidence in Section 4[____] concerns measures taken after the [incident/injury] that would have made the harm less likely, offered to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect, or a need for a warning. [Describe: ________________________________].

GROUND 6 — Settlement / Compromise (MRE 408). The evidence in Section 4[____] concerns settlement communications or offers of compromise and is inadmissible to prove or disprove the validity or amount of the disputed claim. [Describe: ________________________________].

GROUND 7 — Liability Insurance (MRE 411). Any reference to whether a party is or is not insured against liability is inadmissible on the issue of fault and is unfairly prejudicial. [Describe: ________________________________].

GROUND 8 — Unreliable Expert Opinion (MRE 702; MCL 600.2955; Gilbert / Daubert). The opinion(s) of [expert name] in Section 4[____] should be excluded because the testimony fails the gatekeeping requirements of MRE 702, the MCL 600.2955 reliability factors, and Gilbert/Daubert: the methodology is not reliable and/or was not reliably applied to the facts. Specifically, [identify the deficiency — untested theory, no peer review, unknown error rate, not generally accepted, analytical gap, ipse dixit: ________________________________].

GROUND 9 — Golden-Rule / Sympathy / Improper Argument. The opposing party should be precluded from making "golden rule" appeals, inviting jurors to imagine themselves or their families in a party's position, or otherwise appealing to passion, sympathy, or prejudice rather than the evidence. [Describe: ________________________________].

GROUND 10 — [Additional Ground]. [State rule and basis: ________________________________].

5.4 Request to Instruct Counsel and Admonish Witnesses

Because the prejudice from even a single improper reference may be incurable, Movant respectfully requests that the Court, if it grants this Motion:

1. Instruct opposing counsel to refrain from offering, mentioning, or alluding to the excluded matters — directly or indirectly — in voir dire, opening, examination, exhibits, or closing;
2. Direct opposing counsel to admonish and instruct each of its witnesses, before they testify, not to volunteer or refer to the excluded matters before the jury;
3. Require counsel to approach the bench and obtain a ruling outside the hearing of the jury before offering, referencing, or eliciting any excluded matter; and
4. Reserve to Movant all objections and the right to seek a mistrial or other appropriate relief upon violation.

6. REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Pursuant to MCR 2.119(E)(3), Movant requests oral argument. A pretrial ruling will streamline the trial, reduce sidebar interruptions, and prevent the jury's exposure to inadmissible, prejudicial matter.

7. AFFIRMATION OF CONCURRENCE EFFORT (INCLUDE ONLY IF REQUIRED BY LOCAL COURT RULE)

Note — verify before including: MCR 2.119(A)(2) governs brief and page-length requirements for motions, not concurrence; the statewide Michigan Court Rules do not impose a general concurrence-certification requirement. A concurrence/non-concurrence certification is instead required by local court rule in certain circuits (e.g., Third Judicial Circuit LCR 2.119(B)). Confirm the applicable local rule for the circuit where this motion will be filed before including this section.

In compliance with Local Court Rule [________________________________] of the [________________________________] Judicial Circuit, counsel for Movant certifies that on [__/__/____], counsel sought concurrence in the relief requested from opposing counsel via [phone / email]. Concurrence was [denied / unable to be obtained after reasonable efforts].

8. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF

For the foregoing reasons, Movant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Grant this Motion in Limine;
2. Exclude the categories of evidence, testimony, argument, and reference identified in Section 4;
3. Instruct counsel and admonish witnesses as set forth in Section 5.4;
4. Require advance notice and a bench conference before any party offers or references the excluded matters; and
5. Enter the Proposed Order attached as Exhibit 1 and grant any further relief the Court deems just and equitable.

9. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME] (P[________________])
[Law Firm]
[Address]
[City, State ZIP]
[Phone] | [Email]
Attorney for [Moving Party]

Dated: [__/__/____]

10. PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____] I served the foregoing Motion in Limine, Brief, Notice of Hearing, and Proposed Order on all counsel of record via [e-service system (MiFILE) / first-class mail / personal delivery] in accordance with MCR 2.107.

______________________________
[Name]

EXHIBIT 1 — PROPOSED ORDER

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE [CIRCUIT COURT / DISTRICT COURT] FOR THE COUNTY OF [________________]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION IN LIMINE

At a session of said Court held in the [________________] County Courthouse, [________________], Michigan, on the ______ day of [________________], 20____.

PRESENT: Honorable [________________], [Circuit / District] Court Judge

The Court, having reviewed Movant's Motion in Limine, the briefs and supporting documents, and having heard oral argument (if any), and being otherwise fully advised in the premises,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion in Limine is GRANTED, and the opposing party, its counsel, and its witnesses are precluded from offering, mentioning, referring to, or eliciting the following before the jury, absent a prior ruling of this Court obtained outside the hearing of the jury:

☐ [________________________________]
☐ [________________________________]
☐ [________________________________]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall instruct and admonish their witnesses to comply with this Order, and shall approach the bench for a ruling before offering or referencing any excluded matter.

This Order does not resolve the last pending claim and does not close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________
Hon. [________________]
[Circuit / District] Court Judge

Prepared by:
[Attorney Name] (P[________________])
Attorney for [Moving Party]
[Address | Phone | Email]

Sources and References

• MRE 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); MRE 402; MRE 403 (Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons) — https://www.courts.michigan.gov/rules-of-evidence/
• MRE 404 (Character; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts); MRE 608, 609 (Impeachment)
• MRE 407 (Subsequent Remedial Measures); MRE 408 (Compromise); MRE 411 (Liability Insurance)
• MRE 702 (Testimony by Expert Witnesses); MCL 600.2955 (statutory reliability factors) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-2955
• Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 470 Mich. 749 (2004) (Michigan adopts Daubert)
• People v. VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52 (1993) (MRE 404(b) four-part test)
• MCR 2.119 (Motion Practice); MCR 2.107 (Service) — https://www.courts.michigan.gov/