Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

I Jennifer Basola (#23158)
2 KROHN & MOSS, LTD.
5055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300 .
3 Los Angeles, CA 90036
4 (323) 988-2400
(866) 385—5215 (facsimile)
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
` 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 LANE SENNEIT ) Case No. CV 04-0161 PHX ROS
9 )
10 Plaintiff, ) MOTIONS IN LIMINE RE THE
vs. ) PROBATIVIJ VALUE OF A CIVIL
ll ) CASE THAT IS OVER THIRTY (30)
12 WORKHORSE CUSTOM CHASSIS, ) YEARS OLD IS SUBSTANTIALLY
LLC, ) OUTWEIGHED BY PREJUDICE
is Defendant. ) I
M ) (Filed Under Seal)
)
15 )
E6 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
yy A motion in limine is a way to obtain an order from the Court enjoining an opponen
IS from using or mentioning certain prejudicial evidence before the jury during the trial. 20 Am. Jr
· 19 Trials 441 §2. The purpose of a motion in limirte is to avoid disclosing to the jury prejudicia
20 `
matters which may compel a rnistrial. State v. Berger, l08 Ariz. 396, 499 P.2d l52 (1972).
r 21
22 Evidence is admissible in a trial only its probative value is substantially outweighed by th
23 danger of prejudice or confusion of the issues. State v. Hensley, 142 Ariz:. 598, 691 P.2d 68
g 24 (1984). “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value i -
25
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, o
v 26 ‘
27 misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation o
28 cumulative evidence? Federal Rule of Evidence 403. A motion in lirntne to exclud
U Case 2:04—cv—00161—ROS Documenl197 Filed 08/25/2006 Paget of3

I evidence should be granted if the evidence sought to be excluded is clearly inadmissibl
2 for any purpose. Pluir v. EJ Brock & Sons, Inc., 864 F.Supp. 67, 69 (N .D. l1l.l994).
3
4 Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to promote a decision on an improper basis, Such a
5 "prejudging" a cause on the basis of irrelevant extraneous factors.
6 II. THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF A CIVIL CASE THAT IS OVER THIRT
7 (30) YEARS OLD IS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY PREJUDICE.
S The Federal Rules of Evidence provide that evidence, even if it is relevant “ma I
E; be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfai
. ll prejudice, confusion ofthe issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undu
*2 delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence? l*`ed.R.Evid. 403.
ii See also U.S. v. Devery, S.D.N.Y.l996, 935 F.Supp. 3-93 (holding [d]iscretionar
,5 analysis by court under rule which allows admission of prior bad acts of witness fo
16 purposes of impeachment is circumscribed by standard for admissibility of evidenc
U which allows exclusion if probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by it
is
19 prejudicial effect). Participation in a civil case more than thirty (30) years old is clearl
20 stale, and the probative value of such participation is minimal at best. However, such a
21 incident is highly likely to prejudice the jury and therefore, any mention of such rnust .
ii barred. Here Defendant has provided Plaintiff with no written notice that an
, 24 participation in a civil case of any witness is going to be used for any purpose inciudin
25 but not limited to impeachment. As such Plaintiff requests this Court enter an Orde
ii barring Defendant from doing so as at trial Defendant may attempt to bring up prior civi
28
Case 2:04-cv—00161—FlOS Documedl 197 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 2 of 3 (

‘ I cases of witnesses in front of the jury which will have an unfairly prejudieiai effect an _
2 couid result in a mistrial.
2
4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court enter an Order barring Defendan g
5 Workhorse from raising as issues prior convictions of any witness that is over 10 year
6 eta. r
7 .
S RESPECT FULLY SUBMITTED on this 25th day of August, 2006.
9 By: s/Jennifer Basola r
E0 Jennifer Basoia ‘
KROHN & MOSS, LTD. ‘
ll lll West Monroe, 711
12 Phoenix, AZ 85003
. Attorney for Plaintiff(s)
is
M Filed under seal on this 25th day of August, 2006, with:
is United States District Court CM/ECP system
16 Copy e—mai1 delivered on this 25th day of August, 2006, to:
17 O -
Hon. Roslyn O. Silver
ig United States District Court, District of Arizona
19 Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse
401 West Washington Street
20 Phoenix AZ ssees
_2i
Copy emailed and sent via US mail this 25th day of August, 2006 to:
22
23 Mr. Negatu i\/iolla .
Attorney
24 Bowman and Brooke, L.L.P. -
25 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1600
Phoenix AZ 85012-276i
26
27 ms/ToniEstrel1a_,,,_,,_ .
Toni Estrella
i zz ‘
i Case 2:04-ov—00161—FiOS Dooumeni 197 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 197

Filed 08/25/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 197

Filed 08/25/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00161-ROS

Document 197

Filed 08/25/2006

Page 3 of 3