State Court Motion in Limine - Ohio

[MOVING PARTY]'S MOTION IN LIMINE

(State of Ohio — Court of Common Pleas, [________________] County)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Notice of Motion and Hearing
3. Motion in Limine
4. Legal Standard
5. Argument — Grounds for Exclusion
6. Relief Requested (Instruction to Counsel and Witnesses)
7. Conclusion
8. Certificate of Service
9. Exhibit A — Proposed Order

1. CAPTION

STATE OF OHIO
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
[________________] COUNTY

Case No. [________________]

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

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, Ohio], before the Honorable [Judge Name], [Moving Party] will, and hereby does, move this Court for an Order in limine pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Evidence precluding the evidence, testimony, and argument described below.

This Motion is based on this Notice, the pleadings and discovery on file, the grounds and authorities set forth herein, and any argument or evidence presented at or before the hearing.

DATED: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: ______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[OHIO SUP. CT. REG. NO. ________________]
[FIRM ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
[TELEPHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorneys for [Moving Party]

3. MOTION IN LIMINE

[Moving Party], by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court, in advance of trial, for a preliminary Order precluding [opposing party], its counsel, and its witnesses from offering, eliciting, mentioning, or referring to — whether through testimony, exhibits, demonstratives, questions, opening statement, or closing argument — the following categories of evidence and argument:

☐ [Brief description of evidence category 1]
☐ [Brief description of evidence category 2]
☐ [Brief description of evidence category 3]

4. LEGAL STANDARD

Relevance (Evid. R. 401 / 402). "Relevant evidence" means evidence having "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Ohio Evid. R. 401. Evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible. Evid. R. 402.

Unfair Prejudice (Evid. R. 403). Relevant evidence "is not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury" (Evid. R. 403(A)), and may be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence" (Evid. R. 403(B)). This balancing is the analytical core of most motions in limine.

Character and Other Acts (Evid. R. 404, 608, 609). Evidence of a person's character or trait is generally inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity therewith. Evid. R. 404(A). Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible to prove propensity but may be admissible for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. Evid. R. 404(B). Impeachment by truthfulness or by prior conviction is governed by Evid. R. 608 and 609.

Hearsay (Evid. R. 801–803). Out-of-court statements offered for their truth are inadmissible unless an exclusion or exception applies.

Subsequent Remedial Measures (Evid. R. 407). Evidence of measures taken after an event that would have made it less likely is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct.

Compromise and Insurance (Evid. R. 408, 411). Settlement offers and negotiations are inadmissible to prove liability or the amount of a claim (Evid. R. 408), and evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible to prove negligence or wrongful conduct (Evid. R. 411).

Expert Testimony — Reliability (Evid. R. 702). A witness may testify as an expert if (1) the testimony relates to matters beyond the knowledge or experience of lay persons, (2) the witness is qualified, and (3) the testimony is based on reliable scientific, technical, or other specialized information. Ohio Evid. R. 702(C). Ohio rewrote Rule 702 in 1994 to make reliability a key determination, rejecting the Frye general-acceptance test as the sole standard, and the Ohio Supreme Court has looked to Daubert for guidance. Miller v. Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 607 (1998). The court's reliability inquiry focuses on whether the opinion is based on scientifically valid principles and methodology, considering testability, peer review, error rate, and general acceptance.

OHIO EXPERT STANDARD FLAG: Ohio applies a relevance/reliability (Daubert-influenced) standard under Evid. R. 702, adopted in Miller v. Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 607 (1998). Ohio is not strictly a Frye state; general acceptance is one indicium of reliability, not the sole test. Verify current Evid. R. 702 text and case law before filing.

Golden Rule / Appeals to Sympathy. Argument inviting jurors to put themselves in a party's position or to decide on sympathy, passion, or prejudice rather than the evidence is improper and should be precluded.

5. ARGUMENT — GROUNDS FOR EXCLUSION

Ground 1 — Irrelevant and Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence (Evid. R. 401–403)

[Moving Party] moves to exclude [describe evidence] because it has no tendency to make any fact of consequence more or less probable and, even if marginally relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, and undue delay.

Ground 2 — Character Evidence and Prior Bad Acts (Evid. R. 404, 608, 609)

The Court should exclude [describe character/other-acts evidence] offered to show that [party/witness] acted in conformity with a character trait. Any impeachment by prior conviction must satisfy Evid. R. 609.

Ground 3 — Inadmissible Hearsay (Evid. R. 801–803)

[Describe statement/document] is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth and falls within no exception; it should be excluded.

Ground 4 — Subsequent Remedial Measures (Evid. R. 407)

Evidence that [party] [repaired / modified / warned / changed policy] after the events at issue is inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct.

Ground 5 — Settlement Communications and Liability Insurance (Evid. R. 408, 411)

Any reference to settlement offers, negotiations, or the existence or absence of liability insurance must be excluded.

Ground 6 — Unreliable Expert Testimony (Evid. R. 702; Miller v. Bike Athletic)

[Opposing expert]'s opinion that [describe opinion] should be excluded because it is not based on reliable scientific, technical, or other specialized information as required by Evid. R. 702(C). The opinion [rests on an untested theory / lacks peer-reviewed support / has no known error rate / is not grounded in scientifically valid principles].

Ground 7 — Golden-Rule and Sympathy Argument

The Court should preclude any "golden rule" argument or appeal to jury sympathy, passion, or prejudice.

Ground 8 — [Additional Ground]

[Describe additional evidence and the rule(s) requiring its exclusion.]

6. RELIEF REQUESTED (INSTRUCTION TO COUNSEL AND WITNESSES)

[Moving Party] respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order:

1. Excluding the categories of evidence, testimony, and argument identified above;
2. Instructing all counsel to refrain from mentioning, referring to, or attempting to elicit the excluded matters in the presence of the jury — including during voir dire, opening statement, examination of witnesses, and closing argument;
3. Directing counsel to admonish their witnesses, before they testify, not to volunteer or refer to any excluded matter;
4. Requiring that, before any party offers, mentions, or seeks to introduce 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.

7. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, [Moving Party] respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion in Limine in its entirety.

DATED: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: ______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[OHIO SUP. CT. REG. NO. ________________]
Attorneys for [Moving Party]

8. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], I served a copy of the foregoing Motion in Limine and proposed Order on all counsel of record by:

☐ Court e-filing system ☐ Email ☐ U.S. Mail ☐ Hand Delivery

to:

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

______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
[Ohio Sup. Ct. Reg. No. ________________]
Attorneys for [Moving Party]

9. EXHIBIT A — PROPOSED ORDER

STATE OF OHIO
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
[________________] COUNTY

Case No. [________________]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION IN LIMINE

This matter came before the Court on [Moving Party]'s Motion in Limine. The Court, having considered the Motion, any response, and the arguments of counsel, finds the Motion well taken.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion in Limine is GRANTED.
2. [Opposing party], its counsel, and its witnesses are precluded from offering, eliciting, mentioning, or referring at trial to the following: [list excluded matters].
3. Counsel shall admonish their witnesses to comply with this Order, and no party shall offer or reference any excluded matter without first obtaining a ruling at the bench outside the presence of the jury.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________
Judge [________________]
Court of Common Pleas

Sources and References

• Ohio Rules of Evidence, Supreme Court of Ohio: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/docs/LegalResources/Rules/evidence/evidence.pdf
• Ohio Evid. R. 401–403, 404, 407, 408, 411, 608, 609, 702: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/docs/LegalResources/Rules/evidence/evidence.pdf
• Miller v. Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 607, 1998-Ohio-178: https://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/supreme-court-of-ohio/1998/1998-ohio-178.html
• State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio St.3d 199 (1986) (motion in limine is interlocutory; must renew at trial)
• Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure (Civ. R. 7): https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/