Motion in Limine in New Jersey

What Is a Motion in Limine?

Background

“A motion in limine is a pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial. (See Black's Law Dictionary 1109 (9th ed. 2009); Berger v. Holmes, No. A-1953-09T2, at *11 (App. Div. Apr. 23, 2012).)

A motion in limine is “defined as an application returnable at trial for a ruling regarding the conduct of the trial, including admissibility of evidence, which motion, if granted, would not have a dispositive impact on a litigant's case.” (See Moody v. Voorhees Care & Rehab. Ctr., No. A-5561-18, at *14 n.3 (App. Div. Feb. 17, 2021).)

“By the Rule's express terms, in limine motions do not include "an application to bar an expert's testimony in a matter in which such testimony is required as a matter of law to sustain a party's burden of proof.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“[I]t is anticipated that, as a general rule, a motion in limine will not have a dispositive impact on a litigant's entire case. Parties must exchange information about motions in limine intended to be made at the commencement of trial seven days before the initial trial date.” (See Jeter v. Sam's Club, No. A-2-21, at *14 (N.J. Mar. 17, 2022).)

A motion in limine cannot be “a summary judgment motion that happens to be filed on the eve of trial.” (See Cho v. Trinitas Reg'l Med. Ctr. (2015) 443 N.J. Super. 461, 471.) “We have held that motions in limine are disfavored; our caution to trial courts that they be granted only sparingly.” (See Bellardini v. Krikorian (1988) 222 N.J. Super. 457, 464; Yerman v. Morris, No. A-3791-18T3, at *15 (App. Div. Oct. 27, 2020).)

“Thus, it is anticipated that, as a general rule, a motion in limine will not have a dispositive impact on a litigant's entire case.” (See Seoung Ouk Cho v. Trinitas Reg'l Med. Ctr. (2015) 443 N.J. Super. 461, 470.)

“The trial judge should have the opportunity to consider the motion in limine and any opposition in a manner that promotes comprehensive consideration of the issue and its potential implications for the trial.” (See Reynolds v. Action Enters., No. A-1093-10T4, at *11-12 (App. Div. Dec. 6, 2011).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“As a general rule, in limine motions are inappropriate if they require the court to engage in an analysis of credibility or evidence yet to be presented. In such cases, the motions should ordinarily be denied until a sufficient predicate is established.” (See Bellardini v. Krikorian (1988) 222 N.J. Super. 457, 464, 537 A.2d 700.) “They may, however, be used effectively to clarify legal issues in advance of trial, such as the need for expert testimony to prove a standard of care or deviation therefrom.” (See Kelly v. Berlin (1977) 300 N.J. Super. 256, 270, 692 A.2d 552; Sculler v. Sculler (2001) 348 N.J. Super. 374, 376.)

“An in limine motion filed at the time of trial is permissible only when it addresses preliminary or evidentiary issues.” (See Hayes v. Youman, No. A-3205-18T1, at *24 (App. Div. Apr. 23, 2020).)

“Even when a limited issue is presented, [o]ur courts generally disfavor in limine rulings on evidence questions, because the trial provides a superior context for the consideration of such issues. Although a trial judge retains the discretion, in appropriate cases, to rule on the admissibility of evidence pre-trial. We have cautioned that [r]equests for such rulings should be granted only sparingly.” (See Seoung Ouk Cho v. Trinitas Reg'l Med. Ctr. (2015) 443 N.J. Super. 461, 470.)

“Ordinarily, pre-trial requests for in limine rulings on the admissibility of particular evidence should be granted only sparingly, because those rulings are "often in the abstract and not in the context of facts adduced at trial.” (See Bellardini v. Krikorian (1988) 222 N.J. Super. 457, 464.)

“They should be granted with the same caution as requests for dismissals on opening statements.” (See Rubanick v. Witco Chem. Corp. (1990) 242 N.J. Super. 36, 46-47 [noting that a hearing on motion in limine required judge to make factual determinations more properly left to the jury]; Reynolds v. Action Enters., No. A-1093-10T4, at *12 (App. Div. Dec. 6, 2011).)

“However, in limine motions have their place where issues can be eliminated as a matter of law prior to trial.” (See Berrie v. Berrie (1991) 252 N.J. Super. 635, 641; In re Metrologic Instruments, Inc. Shareholders Litig., No. A-2472-13T1, at *39-40 (App. Div. Feb. 10, 2017).)

“As a general rule, admission or exclusion of proffered evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge whose ruling is not disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” (See Dinter v. Sears, Roebuck Co. (1991) 252 N.J. Super. 84 , 92, 599 A.2d 528. “A trial court has the authority to exclude otherwise admissible evidence if the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value.” (See Molino v. B.F. Goodrich Co. (1992) 261 N.J. Super. 85, 103.)

Meet and Confer

“Every motion in a civil case . . . involving any aspect of pretrial discovery . . . shall be listed for disposition only if accompanied by a certification stating that the attorney for the moving party has either (1) personally conferred orally or has made a specifically described good faith attempt to confer orally with the attorney for the opposing party in order to resolve the issues raised by the motion by agreement or consent order and that such effort at resolution has been unsuccessful, or (2) advised the attorney for the opposing party by letter, after the default has occurred, that continued non-compliance with a discovery obligation will result in an appropriate motion being made without further attempt to resolve the matter.” (See Fuller v. Bayer Corp., No. A-4813-15T4, at *9 n.4 (App. Div. June 18, 2018).)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that pursuant to R. 4:25-7 at 2652 “The rule permits opposition to the motion in limine to be filed no later than two days before trial.” (See Pressler & Verniero, supra, Appendix XXIII; Lizzie v. Creamer, No. A-0478-11T4, at *8 (App. Div. Apr. 18, 2013).)

It is also well settled that Rule 4:25-7(b) “expressly requires the exchange of information regarding [a]ny in limine or trial motions intended to be made at the commencement of trial, with supporting memoranda. Rule 4:25-7(b), incorporating Appendix XXIII, is intended to "eliminate the element of surprise at trial" that is created by in limine and trial motions served on an adversary and handed up to the court in the middle of trial. The rule further provides that [f]ailure to exchange and submit all the information required by this rule may result in sanctions as determined by the trial judge.” (See McKenney v. Jersey City Med. Ctr. (2001) 167 N.J. 359, 370; Lauckhardt v. Jeges, No. A-1970-13T4, at *26-27 (App. Div. Oct. 20, 2015).)

Documents for Motion in Limine in New Jersey

Sort By

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smi Th & Davi Vs Paradigm Hedge document preview

Complaint for MON-L-001585-24 submitted by ISAACSON, NANCY , GREENBAUM ROW…

61 pages

MON-L-001585-24 05/10/2024 6:01:53 PM Pglof61 Trans ID: LCV20241205056 Nancy Isaacson, Esquire (ID # 032281985) GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS LLP 75 Livingston Avenue Roseland, New Jersey 07068 (973) 535-1600 Attorneys for Plaintiff GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY & DAVIS LLP, LAW DIVISION: MONMOUTH COUNTY Plaintiff, DOCKET NO. Vv, …