State Court Motion in Limine - Utah

MOTION IN LIMINE

(Utah State Court — Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Notice of Motion and Motion

3. Memorandum of Law
   3.1 Introduction
   3.2 The Evidence Sought to Be Excluded
   3.3 Legal Standard
   3.4 Argument — Numbered Grounds
   3.5 Conclusion

4. Proposed Order

5. Certificate of Service

1. CAPTION

IN THE [________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR [____________________________] COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

Case No.: [________________]
Judge: Hon. [________________]

[MOVANT]'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. [____] TO EXCLUDE [________________]

Trial Date: [__/__/____]
Hearing Date: [__/__/____] at [________________] a.m./p.m.

2. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

TO: [________________________________], Attorney for [Plaintiff / Defendant], and all parties of record.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that [Plaintiff / Defendant] [________________] ("Movant") will, and hereby does, move this Court, in advance of trial and outside the presence of the jury, for an order prohibiting [the opposing party] [________________] ("[Opposing Party]"), and its counsel and witnesses, from offering, mentioning, referring to, interrogating concerning, or attempting to convey to the jury in any manner — directly or indirectly — the evidence and matters described below, and from suggesting to the jury that such matters exist, without first obtaining a ruling from the Court outside the presence and hearing of the jury.

This Motion is made pursuant to the Court's inherent authority to control the proceedings, Utah R. Civ. P. 7, and Utah Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403, and the additional authorities set forth below, on the grounds that the evidence is irrelevant and/or that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. The Motion is based on this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Law, the papers and records on file in this action, and any further evidence or argument presented at or before the hearing.

DATED: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: ______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME] (Utah Bar No. [________________])
Attorney for [Movant]

3. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

3.1 Introduction

This is an action for [describe nature of action — e.g., negligence arising from a motor-vehicle collision / breach of contract / products liability]. Trial is set for [__/__/____]. Movant anticipates that, absent an order from this Court, [Opposing Party] will attempt to introduce or elicit evidence and argument that is irrelevant under Utah R. Evid. 401 and 402, and/or that is subject to exclusion under Utah R. Evid. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury — the mere mention of which before the jury would cause harm that no instruction could cure. Movant therefore moves to exclude the matters set forth below.

3.2 The Evidence Sought to Be Excluded

Movant seeks an order excluding the following specific items of evidence:

1. [________________________________]
2. [________________________________]
3. [________________________________]

3.3 Legal Standard

Relevance (Utah R. Evid. 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. (Utah R. Evid. 401.) Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. (Utah R. Evid. 402.)

Discretion to Exclude — Utah R. Evid. 403 (the FRE 403 analog). The court may exclude relevant evidence 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. (Utah R. Evid. 403.)

Character and Other Acts (Utah R. Evid. 404). Evidence of a person's character or character trait is generally not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. (Utah R. Evid. 404(a).) Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove character in order to show action in conformity, though it may be admissible for another purpose — such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident — subject to Rule 404(b) and to exclusion under Rule 403.

Credibility and Impeachment (Utah R. Evid. 608, 609). A witness's character for truthfulness may be addressed under Rule 608. Impeachment by evidence of a conviction is governed by Rule 609, including its requirements concerning the nature of the crime, time limits, and the balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect.

Hearsay (Utah R. Evid. 801, 802). Hearsay is not admissible unless provided otherwise by the Utah Rules of Evidence, other rules, or a statute. (Utah R. Evid. 802.)

Subsequent Remedial Measures (Utah R. Evid. 407). When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for a warning or instruction. Such evidence may be admitted for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.

Compromise Offers and Negotiations (Utah R. Evid. 408). Evidence of furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept — valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim, and conduct or statements made during compromise negotiations, is not admissible to prove or disprove liability for, the validity of, or the amount of a disputed claim. The court may admit the evidence for another purpose, and otherwise discoverable evidence is not excluded merely because it was presented during compromise negotiations.

Liability Insurance (Utah R. Evid. 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.

Expert Testimony — Utah R. Evid. 702 and the "Threshold Showing" Standard. Utah applies its own rule-based reliability standard for expert testimony — it is not a strict Daubert jurisdiction and not a Frye jurisdiction. Under Utah R. Evid. 702(a), a qualified expert may testify if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact. Under Rule 702(b), the proponent must make a threshold showing that the principles or methods underlying the testimony (i) are reliable, (ii) are based upon sufficient facts or data, and (iii) have been reliably applied to the facts. Rule 702(c) provides that this threshold showing is satisfied if the underlying principles or methods, including the sufficiency of facts or data and the manner of their application, are generally accepted by the relevant expert community. As the Utah Supreme Court has explained, Rule 702 "assigns to trial judges a gatekeeper responsibility to screen out unreliable expert testimony," but the threshold requires only "a basic foundational showing of indicia of reliability for the testimony to be admissible, not that the opinion is indisputably correct." Taylor v. University of Utah, 2020 UT 21, 466 P.3d 124. This standard is more flexible and less stringent than the federal Daubert standard.

Golden-Rule and Improper Appeals to Sympathy or Passion. Argument inviting jurors to place themselves in the position of a party (the "golden rule"), or appealing to sympathy, passion, or prejudice rather than the evidence, is improper and excludable under Utah R. Evid. 403 and Utah decisional law governing improper argument.

3.4 Argument — Numbered Grounds

GROUND 1 — Irrelevant Evidence (Utah R. Evid. 401, 402).
Movant moves to exclude [describe evidence] because it has no tendency to make any fact of consequence in this action more or less probable. Specifically, [________________________________]. Because the evidence is irrelevant, it is inadmissible under Utah R. Evid. 402.

GROUND 2 — Unfair Prejudice, Confusion, and Waste of Time (Utah R. Evid. 403).
Movant moves to exclude [describe evidence] because any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. [________________________________].

GROUND 3 — Character and Other Acts (Utah R. Evid. 404; 403).
Movant moves to exclude evidence, reference, or argument concerning [describe prior bad acts / character], which is offered only to prove that the [party/witness] acted in conformity with a character trait and is inadmissible under Utah R. Evid. 404, and which, even if offered for a permissible purpose under Rule 404(b), should be excluded under Rule 403.

GROUND 4 — Improper Impeachment (Utah R. Evid. 608, 609; 403).
Movant moves to exclude impeachment by [describe prior conviction / other matter] because it does not satisfy the requirements of Utah R. Evid. 609 and/or its probative value on credibility is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.

GROUND 5 — Inadmissible Hearsay (Utah R. Evid. 801, 802).
Movant moves to exclude [describe out-of-court statement / document] as inadmissible hearsay offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, for which no exception applies.

GROUND 6 — Subsequent Remedial Measures (Utah R. Evid. 407).
Movant moves to exclude evidence of [describe post-event repair, change, recall, or policy change] offered to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a product defect, or a need for a warning, inadmissible under Utah R. Evid. 407.

GROUND 7 — Compromise Offers and Negotiations (Utah R. Evid. 408).
Movant moves to exclude [identify the compromise offer, conduct, or statement], made during compromise negotiations concerning the disputed claim, to the extent it is offered to prove or disprove liability for, the validity of, or the amount of that claim. Utah R. Evid. 408 does not require exclusion for another purpose or of otherwise discoverable evidence merely because it was presented during compromise negotiations.

GROUND 8 — Liability Insurance (Utah R. Evid. 411).
Movant moves to exclude any evidence, reference, or argument that any party was or was not covered by liability insurance, which is inadmissible on the issue of negligent or wrongful conduct.

GROUND 9 — Inadmissible / Unreliable Expert Testimony (Utah R. Evid. 702; Taylor).
Movant moves to exclude the opinion testimony of [Expert Name] because the proponent cannot make the threshold showing required by Utah R. Evid. 702 — that the underlying principles or methods are reliable, are based on sufficient facts or data, and have been reliably applied to the facts — and the principles or methods are not generally accepted by the relevant expert community. Specifically, [________________________________]. Because the testimony lacks the basic indicia of reliability required by Rule 702, the Court should exercise its gatekeeping role and exclude it. See Taylor v. University of Utah, 2020 UT 21, 466 P.3d 124.

GROUND 10 — Golden-Rule Argument and Appeals to Sympathy or Passion (Utah R. Evid. 403).
Movant moves to prohibit opposing counsel from making any "golden rule" argument asking jurors to place themselves in the position of a party, and from any argument or evidence appealing to sympathy, passion, or prejudice rather than the evidence.

GROUND 11 — [Additional Ground].
[________________________________]

3.5 Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Movant respectfully requests that the Court GRANT this Motion in Limine; ORDER that [Opposing Party], its counsel, and its witnesses refrain from offering, mentioning, or alluding to the excluded matters in the presence or hearing of the jury, whether during voir dire, opening statement, examination of witnesses, or closing argument, without first approaching the bench and obtaining leave of Court outside the jury's presence; DIRECT counsel to instruct and admonish their witnesses accordingly; and GRANT such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: ______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME] (Utah Bar No. [________________])
[Street Address] | [City, Utah ZIP]
Telephone: [________________] | Email: [________________]
Attorney for [Movant]

4. [PROPOSED] ORDER

IN THE [________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR [____________________________] COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

Case No.: [________________]

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING [MOVANT]'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. [____]

The Court, having considered Movant's Motion in Limine, any response, and the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing, hereby ORDERS:

1. The Motion is GRANTED as set forth below.
2. The following evidence, testimony, argument, and reference is EXCLUDED: [________________________________].
3. [Opposing Party], its counsel, and its witnesses shall not offer, mention, refer to, or attempt to convey to the jury — directly or indirectly — any of the excluded matters during voir dire, opening statement, the examination of witnesses, or closing argument, without first obtaining leave of Court outside the presence and hearing of the jury.
4. Counsel for [Opposing Party] shall instruct and admonish each of its witnesses to comply with this Order.

Ruling on each numbered ground:

GROUND 1 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
GROUND 2 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
GROUND 3 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
GROUND 4 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
GROUND 5 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
GROUND 6 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
GROUND 7 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
GROUND 8 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
GROUND 9 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
GROUND 10 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐
GROUND 11 — GRANTED ☐ / DENIED ☐ / RESERVED for trial ☐

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this _____ day of ________________________, 20_____.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

5. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing [MOVANT]'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. [____]; MEMORANDUM OF LAW; [PROPOSED] ORDER was served upon the following via:

☐ Utah e-filing system (MyCase / approved e-filing provider)
☐ U.S. Mail, First Class, postage prepaid
☐ Electronic mail (with consent)
☐ Hand delivery

______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], Utah Bar No. [________________]

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Utah Rules of Evidence (full text): https://www.utcourts.gov/en/legal/rules/rules-of-evidence.html
• Utah R. Evid. 401, 402, 403 — Relevance and exclusion for prejudice, confusion, or other reasons
• Utah R. Evid. 404 — Character evidence; crimes, wrongs, or other acts
• Utah R. Evid. 407 — Subsequent remedial measures
• Utah R. Evid. 408 — Compromise offers and negotiations
• Utah R. Evid. 411 — Liability insurance
• Utah R. Evid. 608, 609 — Witness's character for truthfulness; impeachment by evidence of conviction
• Utah R. Evid. 702 — Testimony by experts (threshold-showing reliability standard): https://legacy.utcourts.gov/rules/view.php?type=ure&rule=702
• Taylor v. University of Utah, 2020 UT 21, 466 P.3d 124 — gatekeeping role; threshold showing of indicia of reliability
• Utah R. Civ. P. 7 — Pleadings allowed; motions, memoranda, hearings, orders