State Court Motion in Limine - Minnesota

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE

(State of Minnesota — District Court, [________________] Judicial District, County of [________________])

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

6. Signature Block

7. Certificate of Service
8. Exhibit A — Proposed Order

1. CAPTION

STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
[________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF [________________]

Assigned 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 counsel may be heard, in [Courtroom] of the above-entitled court, located at [Courthouse Address, City, Minnesota], before the Honorable [Judge Name], [Plaintiff / Defendant] [Moving Party Name] ("Movant") will, and hereby does, move this Court in limine, pursuant to Minn. R. Evid. 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 Memorandum of Law, the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, the pleadings and records on file, and any further evidence or argument presented at or before the hearing.

DATED: [________________]

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: ______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[MN Atty Reg. No. ________________]
[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 Minn. R. Evid. 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 Memorandum of Law.

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. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION IN LIMINE

5.1 Introduction

This case is set 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 Minnesota 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 — Minn. R. Evid. 401, 402. "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Minn. R. Evid. 401. Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. Minn. R. Evid. 402.

Unfair Prejudice — Minn. R. Evid. 403. Even relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Minn. R. Evid. 403.

Character and Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts — Minn. R. Evid. 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 conduct in conformity therewith, though it may be admissible for another purpose (e.g., motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident). Impeachment by character for truthfulness and by prior convictions is governed by Minn. R. Evid. 608 and 609.

Subsequent Remedial Measures — Minn. R. Evid. 407. Evidence of measures taken after an event that would have made the event less likely to occur is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event.

Compromise and Offers — Minn. R. Evid. 408. Evidence of furnishing, offering, or accepting a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim, and conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount.

Liability Insurance — Minn. R. Evid. 411. 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.

Hearsay — Minn. R. Evid. 801 et seq. Out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted are inadmissible unless they fall within an exclusion or exception.

Expert Testimony / Reliability — Minn. R. Evid. 702; FRYE-MACK. If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact, a qualified expert may testify in the form of an opinion; the opinion must have foundational reliability; and "if the opinion or evidence involves novel scientific theory, the proponent must establish that the underlying scientific evidence is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community." Minn. R. Evid. 702. Minnesota applies the Frye-Mack standard and has declined to adopt Daubert. Under Frye-Mack, novel scientific evidence is admissible only when (1) the theory, technique, or methodology is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, and (2) the particular evidence has a scientifically reliable (foundational) basis, including that the test itself is reliable and was administered in conformity with the procedures necessary to ensure reliability. Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800, 814 (Minn. 2000); State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. 1980).

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 (Minn. R. Evid. 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 (Minn. R. Evid. 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 / Prior Acts (Minn. R. Evid. 404, 608, 609). The evidence in Section 4[____] is offered only to suggest that [party/witness] acted in conformity with a character trait or prior act and is inadmissible propensity evidence serving no permitted Rule 404(b) purpose; any impeachment use is barred or limited by Rules 608-609 because [________________________________].

GROUND 4 — Inadmissible Hearsay (Minn. R. Evid. 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 (Minn. R. Evid. 407). The evidence in Section 4[____] concerns measures taken after the [event/injury] that would have made it less likely, offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct. [Describe: ________________________________].

GROUND 6 — Settlement / Compromise (Minn. R. Evid. 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 (Minn. R. Evid. 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 — Expert Opinion Lacking Foundational Reliability / General Acceptance (Minn. R. Evid. 702; Frye-Mack). The opinion(s) of [expert name] in Section 4[____] should be excluded because the testimony lacks foundational reliability and/or, to the extent it rests on novel scientific theory, the underlying science is not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community under Frye-Mack. Specifically, [identify the deficiency — the methodology is not generally accepted; the test/procedure is not reliable or was not properly administered; the opinion lacks an adequate factual basis: ________________________________].

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.

WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests that this Court grant this Motion in Limine; exclude the categories of evidence, testimony, argument, and reference identified in Section 4; instruct counsel and admonish witnesses as set forth above; require advance notice and a bench conference before any party offers or references the excluded matters; and enter the Proposed Order attached as Exhibit A, together with such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

6. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: ______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[MN Atty Reg. No. ________________]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[TELEPHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorney for [Moving Party]

Dated: [__/__/____]

7. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this ______ day of [________________], 20____, I served the foregoing Notice of Motion and Motion in Limine, supporting Memorandum, and proposed Order on all counsel of record via [E-Filing System (MNCIS/eFS) / U.S. Mail / personal service] in accordance with Minn. R. Civ. P. 5 and the Minnesota Rules of General Practice.

______________________________
[Name]

EXHIBIT A — PROPOSED ORDER

STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
[________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF [________________]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION IN LIMINE

This matter came before the Court on [Moving Party]'s Motion in Limine. Based on the Motion, the supporting Memorandum, any opposition, the arguments of counsel, and the files, records, and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. 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:

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

2. Counsel shall instruct and admonish their witnesses to comply with this Order; and

3. Before offering or referencing any excluded matter, counsel shall first approach the bench and obtain a ruling.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________
Judge of District Court
Dated: [__/__/____]

Sources and References

• Minn. R. Evid. 401 (Definition of "Relevant Evidence"); 402; 403 (Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time) — https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/ev/
• Minn. R. Evid. 404 (Character; Other Crimes); 608, 609 (Impeachment)
• Minn. R. Evid. 407 (Subsequent Remedial Measures); 408 (Compromise); 411 (Liability Insurance)
• Minn. R. Evid. 702 (Testimony by Experts) — https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/ev/id/702/
• Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. 2000) (reaffirming Frye-Mack; declining Daubert)
• State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. 1980) (foundational reliability prong)
• Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 115 (Motion Practice); Minn. R. Civ. P. 7 — https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/