State Court Motion in Limine - Nevada

MOTION IN LIMINE AND POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

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

TEMPLATE INSTRUCTIONS

☐ Replace every bracketed placeholder with case-specific information
☐ Frame any expert challenge under NRS 50.275 and the applicable Hallmark v. Eldridge factors
☐ Cite Nevada evidence statutes by NRS number (48.015/48.025/48.035, 48.045, 48.095, 48.105, 48.135, 50.275)
☐ If filing in the Eighth Judicial District, satisfy EDCR 2.47's timing and attach the conference declaration below
☐ Preserve the evidentiary issue under NRS 47.040 and follow any court direction about trial objections or offers of proof
☐ Remove all template instructions and guidance notes before filing

1. CAPTION

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

Case No.: [________________]
Dept. No.: [____]
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 specific matters identified below should be excluded under Nevada law because [STATE THE GROUNDS AND THE PREJUDICE FROM DISCLOSURE BEFORE A RULING]. This Motion is supported by the following Points and Authorities.

3. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 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 Nevada law. 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 — NRS 48.015, 48.025. "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 not admissible.

Unfair prejudice — NRS 48.035. Although relevant, evidence is not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury; and may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Character and prior acts — NRS 48.045. Subject to the statute's exceptions, character evidence is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity on a particular occasion. Other crimes, wrongs, or acts cannot be used for propensity 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 — NRS 48.095. 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. The statute does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as ownership, control, feasibility of precautionary measures, or impeachment.

Compromise — NRS 48.105. Evidence of consideration offered or accepted to compromise a claim disputed as to validity or amount, and conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity or amount of the claim. The statute does not require exclusion when offered for another purpose, such as witness bias or an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation.

Payment of medical expenses — NRS 48.115. Evidence of furnishing, offering, or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.

Liability insurance — NRS 48.135. Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue of whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.

Expert testimony — NRS 50.275 and Hallmark. Under NRS 50.275, a witness qualified as an expert by special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify to matters within that knowledge's scope if it will assist the trier of fact. Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 189 P.3d 646 (2008), applies qualification, assistance, and limited-scope requirements. For assistance, the opinion must be relevant and based on reliable methodology. The court may consider the opinion's field, testing, peer review, general acceptance, and factual foundation, giving each factor weight appropriate to the case. Hallmark treated federal Daubert decisions as persuasive; Nevada's governing statute is NRS 50.275.

Golden-rule and sympathy argument. Asking jurors to place themselves in a party's position or to ignore the evidence and “send a message” is improper. An argument about a verdict's broader effect is not automatically improper when tied to the evidence. Identify the precise anticipated statement and why it crosses that line.

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 under NRS 48.015–48.035.

Ground 2 — Character evidence and prior bad acts of [________________].
Inadmissible under NRS 48.045 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] should be excluded under NRS 48.095 to the extent offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct; [explain why any asserted other purpose does not warrant admission].

Ground 4 — Compromise and settlement negotiations.
The identified [offer / statement / conduct] arose in negotiations to compromise a claim disputed as to [validity / amount] and is offered to prove [liability / invalidity / amount], so NRS 48.105 excludes it; [address any asserted other purpose].

Ground 5 — Liability insurance and payment of medical expenses.
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability (NRS 48.135), and any offer or payment of medical or similar expenses (NRS 48.115), should be excluded when offered to prove wrongful conduct or liability for the injury. Address any permissible other purpose for insurance evidence under NRS 48.135(2).

Ground 6 — Inadmissible expert opinion of [Expert Name].
The specific opinion [identify opinion] of [Expert Name] fails NRS 50.275 and Hallmark v. Eldridge because [identify the qualification, assistance, reliable-methodology, factual-foundation, or scope defect with record support]. The court should exclude that opinion after considering the applicable factors in context.

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 (NRS Chapter 51).

Ground 8 — Golden-rule or evidence-displacing argument.
Counsel should be barred from [quote or describe the anticipated argument] because it would ask jurors to place themselves in a party's position or to disregard the evidence in order to send a message. Identify how the actual argument differs from a permissible evidence-based appeal.

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], [Nev. Bar No. ________________]
[FIRM ADDRESS] | [CITY, STATE ZIP]
[TELEPHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorney for [Moving Party]

EDCR 2.47 Conference Declaration (Eighth Judicial District only)

I, [MOVING COUNSEL], declare under penalty of perjury that I [conferred personally / conferred by telephone / made a good-faith effort to confer] with [OPPOSING COUNSEL] on [DATE] about the specific evidence and arguments identified in this motion. The parties resolved [ISSUES RESOLVED]. They could not resolve [ISSUES UNRESOLVED] because [REASONS]. My efforts to resolve the remaining issues were [DESCRIBE ATTEMPTS]. If a personal or telephone conference did not occur, the reason was [EXPLAIN].

Executed on [__/__/____] at [CITY, STATE].

______________________________
[MOVING COUNSEL]

4. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____], I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on the persons listed below by the method selected. Use electronic filing service only if the filing court's system and rules authorize it for that recipient.

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

Service method: ☐ Authorized court e-filing service ☐ U.S. Mail ☐ Email, if authorized ☐ Hand delivery

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

5. [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

Case No.: [________________] Dept. No.: [____]

ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE

Upon consideration of Movant's Motion in Limine, any opposition, 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 Judge

Sources and References

• NRS Chapter 48 — Admissibility Generally (relevance, prejudice, character, subsequent remedial measures, compromise, insurance): https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-048.html
• NRS 50.275 — Testimony by experts: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-050.html
• Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 189 P.3d 646 (2008), discussed in the Nevada Supreme Court's official Rish v. Simao report: https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/11548/132_nevada_reports_pages_180-236.pdf
• Pizarro-Ortega v. Cervantes-Lopez (2017), Nevada Supreme Court on golden-rule arguments: https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/11616/133_nevada_reports_pages_257-285.pdf
• EDCR 2.47 (Eighth Judicial District filing, hearing, and conference declaration): https://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/eighthdcr.html
• NRS 47.040 (evidence-ruling preservation): https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-047.html#NRS047Sec040
• NRS 51.035 (hearsay definition): https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-051.html#NRS051Sec035