Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence or Reference in New Jersey

What Is a Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence or Reference?

Background

“A motion in limine is a pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial.” (See Cho v. Trinitas Reg'l Med. Center (2015) 443 N.J. Super. 461, 470 [quoting Black's Law Dictionary 791 (9th ed. 2009)].) “Although our courts generally disfavor motions in limine, trial judges retain the discretion to grant the motions when appropriate.” (See Iko v. Cnty. of Middlesex, No. A-4036-17T1, at *13 (App. Div. June 20, 2019).)

“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).)

“Except in certain circumstances, relevant evidence, which is evidence having a tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence to the determination of the action[,] is admissible." (See N.J.R.E. 401, 402.) “The evidence must be probative of a fact that is really in issue in the case[,] as determined by reference to the applicable substantive law.” (See Iko v. Cnty. of Middlesex, No. A-4036-17T1, at *13-14 (App. Div. June 20, 2019).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A motion in limine is a pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial.” (See Cho v. Trinitas Reg'l Med. Ctr. (2015) 443 N.J. Super 461, 470 [quoting Black's Law Dictionary 791 (9th ed. 2009].) "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.” (See id.)

“However, trial judges retain the discretion to grant evidentiary motions when appropriate. Trial judges are cautioned to use their discretion sparingly, especially when a party seeks to exclude expert testimony because such exclusion has the concomitant effect of rendering a [party's] claim futile.” (See Bellardini v. Krikorian (1988) 222 N.J. Super. 457, 463-64; Twp. of Manalapan v. Gentile, No. A-5302-16T1, at *15 (App. Div. June 4, 2019).)

“A motion in limine is not a summary judgment motion that happens to filed on the eve of trial. Thus, [w]hen granting a motion will result in the dismissal of a plaintiff's case or the suppression of a defendant's defenses, the motion is subject to Rule 4:46, the rule that governs summary judgment motions[,] which requires that motions be returnable at least thirty days prior to the scheduled trial date, unless otherwise ordered by the court.” (See Twp. of Manalapan v. Gentile, No. A-5302-16T1, at *15 (App. Div. June 4, 2019).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“We review a court's decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion.” (See Estate of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. (2010) 202 N.J. 369, 383-84; Fou v. Tung, No. A-4690-18, at *51 (App. Div. Aug. 25, 2021).)

“Thus, an appellate court will not disturb a trial court's evidentiary rulings unless they are so wide of the mark that a manifest denial of justice resulted." (See Green v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co. (1999) 160 N.J. 482, 492.) “However, an appellate court will review questions of law de novo.” (See Balsamides v. Protameen Chem., Inc. (1999) 160 N.J. 352, 372; Iko v. Cnty. of Middlesex, No. A-4036-17T1, at *13 (App. Div. June 20, 2019).)

“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.)

“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.)

“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).)

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 “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.” (See Lauckhardt v. Jeges, No. A-1970-13T4, at *26 (App. Div. Oct. 20, 2015).)

It is also 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).)

Documents for Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence or Reference in New Jersey

Sort By

Cazassa Richard Vs Alcorta Carlos document preview

ORDER EXTEND DISCOVERY-Partial by Judge ODWYER, JOHN, D re: MOTION TO EXTE…

2 pages

BER-L-007521-19 11/03/2023 Pglof2 Trans ID: LCV20233304207 LAW OFFICE OF FRANK A. VISCOMI BY: Emily S. Barnett, Esq. Attorney ID: 015761993 PO Box 6835 Scranton, PA 18505-6835 973-538-2930 Attorneys for Defendant, Carlos E. Alcorta RICHARD CAZASSA SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY Plaintiff DOCKET NO.: BER-L…