State Court Motion in Limine - Montana

MOTION IN LIMINE AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

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

TEMPLATE INSTRUCTIONS

☐ Replace every bracketed placeholder with case-specific information
☐ For any expert challenge, decide whether novel science triggers the Daubert factors; every expert remains subject to Montana Rule 702's reliable-field, qualification, helpfulness, fit, and foundation requirements
☐ Cite the Montana Rules of Evidence by rule number (401–403, 404, 407, 408, 411, 702)
☐ Obtain a definitive ruling on each issue; if the court does not definitively rule, renew the objection when the matter arises at trial
☐ Remove all template instructions and guidance notes before filing

1. CAPTION

MONTANA [________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, [________________] COUNTY

Cause No.: [________________]
Dept./Judge: Hon. [________________]
Trial Date: [__/__/____]

2. MOTION IN LIMINE

COMES NOW [Moving Party Name] ("Movant"), by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Court, in advance of trial, for an order prohibiting [Opposing Party Name], its counsel, and its witnesses from offering, mentioning, eliciting, referring to, or in any manner conveying to the jury — directly or indirectly — any of the matters set forth below, without first approaching the bench and obtaining a ruling outside the presence and hearing of the jury.

The matters identified below are inadmissible under the Montana Rules of Evidence, and any reference to them before the jury would be so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard could not cure the harm. This Motion is supported by the following Brief in Support.

3. BRIEF IN SUPPORT

3.1 Introduction

This case is set for jury trial on [__/__/____]. Movant anticipates that, absent an order in limine, [Opposing Party] will attempt to introduce evidence or argument that is irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, or otherwise inadmissible under the Montana Rules of Evidence. This Motion seeks to prevent the injection of such matters into trial, where their prejudicial effect could not be undone after the jury has heard them.

3.2 Legal Standard

Relevance — Mont. R. Evid. 401–402. "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of a fact of consequence more or less probable. All relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided; evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible.

Unfair prejudice — Mont. R. Evid. 403. Although 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. The district court has broad discretion in this balancing.

Character and prior acts — Mont. R. Evid. 404. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible to prove action in conformity therewith; evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible to prove character but may be admissible for another purpose, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

Subsequent remedial measures — Mont. R. Evid. 407. Evidence of measures taken after an event that, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct, though it may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, feasibility (if controverted), or impeachment.

Compromise — Mont. R. Evid. 408. Evidence of furnishing, offering, or promising to furnish (or accepting) consideration in compromising a claim disputed as to validity or amount, and conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations, is not admissible to prove liability for, invalidity of, or the amount of the claim. The rule preserves other-purpose use and otherwise discoverable evidence.

Liability insurance — Mont. R. Evid. 411. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible on the question of whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.

Expert testimony — Mont. R. Evid. 702. A witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact. Montana does not apply the federal Daubert inquiry to all expert testimony. The Daubert factors are reserved for novel scientific evidence. Hulse v. State, Department of Justice, 1998 MT 108, ¶ 57. But ordinary Rule 702 review is not limited to qualification and helpfulness: the court addresses whether the field is reliable and whether the witness is qualified in that field. Once those thresholds are met, disputes over the expert's application ordinarily go to weight through cross-examination, contrary evidence, and burden-of-proof instructions. State v. Clifford, 2005 MT 219, ¶ 28; Kipfinger v. Great Falls Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, 2023 MT 44, ¶ 47.

Golden-rule and sympathy argument. Argument inviting jurors to place themselves in a party's position, or appealing to passion, sympathy, or prejudice rather than the evidence, is improper and should be excluded.

3.3 Specific Matters To Be Excluded

Ground 1 — Irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial evidence of [________________________________].
This evidence has no tendency to prove any fact of consequence; even if marginally relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues under Mont. R. Evid. 401–403.

Ground 2 — Character evidence and prior bad acts of [________________].
Inadmissible under Mont. R. Evid. 404 to show conduct in conformity, and offered for no proper non-propensity purpose.

Ground 3 — Subsequent remedial measures.
[Repairs / design changes / policy changes] taken after [the event] are inadmissible under Mont. R. Evid. 407 to prove negligence or culpable conduct.

Ground 4 — Compromise and settlement negotiations.
Movant seeks exclusion of [identify the compromise offer, conduct, or statement], made during compromise negotiations concerning the disputed claim, to the extent it is offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or the amount of that claim. Mont. R. Evid. 408 does not require exclusion for another purpose or of otherwise discoverable evidence merely because it was presented during compromise negotiations.

Ground 5 — Liability insurance.
The existence, absence, or amount of any liability insurance is inadmissible under Mont. R. Evid. 411.

Ground 6 — Inadmissible expert opinion of [Expert Name].
The opinions of [Expert Name] are inadmissible because [the asserted field is not reliable / the witness is not qualified in that field / the testimony will not assist the trier of fact / the methodology is novel and fails the Hulse Daubert inquiry / the opinion lacks adequate fit or foundation].

Ground 7 — Hearsay statements of [________________].
[Out-of-court statement] offered for the truth of the matter asserted is inadmissible hearsay not within any recognized exception (Mont. R. Evid. 801–804).

Ground 8 — Golden-rule, sympathy, and "send a message" argument.
Counsel should be barred from asking jurors to place themselves in a party's position or from appealing to passion, sympathy, or community prejudice.

Ground 9 — [Additional ground: ________________________________].
[State the evidence and the basis for exclusion.]

3.4 Relief Requested

WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests that the Court:

1. GRANT this Motion in Limine and enter an order excluding each category of evidence and argument identified above;
2. INSTRUCT counsel for [Opposing Party] to refrain from any direct or indirect reference to the excluded matters in voir dire, opening statement, examination of witnesses, exhibits, or closing argument;
3. DIRECT counsel for [Opposing Party] to admonish and instruct each of its witnesses, before testifying, not to mention or volunteer any of the excluded matters in the presence of the jury;
4. REQUIRE that, before any party offers or attempts to elicit any excluded matter, counsel first approach the bench and obtain a ruling outside the presence and hearing of the jury; and
5. GRANT such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

DATED: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: ______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], [Mont. Bar No. ________________]
[FIRM ADDRESS] | [CITY, STATE ZIP]
[TELEPHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorney for [Moving Party]

4. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of record via the Montana eFiling system or as indicated below:

[Opposing Counsel Name] | [Firm] | [Address] | [Email]

Service method: ☐ Montana eFiling ☐ U.S. Mail ☐ Email ☐ Hand delivery

______________________________
[Attorney Name], [Mont. Bar No. ________________]

5. [PROPOSED] ORDER

MONTANA [________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, [________________] COUNTY

Cause No.: [________________]

ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE

Upon consideration of Movant's Motion in Limine, any response, and the applicable law, the Court ORDERS as follows as to each numbered ground:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall instruct their witnesses to comply with this Order and shall approach the bench before referring to any matter excluded above.

DATED this ______ day of ________________, 20____.

______________________________
District Court Judge

Sources and References

• Montana Rules of Evidence (Title 26, ch. 10, MCA) — full index: https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0260/chapter_0100/part_0040/sections_index.html
• Mont. R. Evid. 401–403 (relevance/prejudice); 404 (character); 407 (subsequent remedial measures); 408 (compromise); 411 (liability insurance); 702 (experts)
• Hulse v. State, Department of Justice, 1998 MT 108, 289 Mont. 1, 961 P.2d 75 — Daubert limited to novel scientific evidence
• State v. Clifford, 2005 MT 219, ¶¶ 28-30 — reliable-field and qualification thresholds; application disputes ordinarily go to weight: https://supremecourtdocket.mt.gov/api/filenet/get-content?objectId=%7B414D843C-01F6-5AE0-3F2F-008321283042%7D&filename=03-509.pdf
• Kipfinger v. Great Falls Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, 2023 MT 44, ¶ 47 — current application of the Clifford Rule 702 framework: https://supremecourtdocket.mt.gov/api/filenet/get-content-by-ctrack-id?ctrackId=423272&filename=423272.pdf
• State v. Favel, 2015 MT 336, ¶¶ 17-22 — a definitive ruling on a motion in limine may preserve the issue; absent a definitive ruling, object at trial
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)