Speaking of MILs, Chief Judge Stark recently denied two motions that were, "in reality, motions for summary judgment" masquerading as MILs. Xcoal Energy & Res. v. Bluestone Energy Sales Corp., C.A. No. 18-819-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 3, 2020).
The motions were framed as MILS to exclude evidence on the defendants' "fraud-based claims and defenses" and their claim for lost profits. But they actually sought "judgment on particular claims and defenses[,]" and they didn't even mention the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The judge denied the motions outright, explaining that:
“[M]otions in limine should not be used as disguised motions for summary judgment.” Brown v. Oakland County, 2015 WL 5317194 at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 10, 2015); see also SPX Corp. v. Bartec USA, 2008 WL 3850770, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2008) (“[M]otions in limine are not proper procedural devices for the wholesale disposition of theories or defenses.”).
You only get a small number of MILs—don't burn them on stealth SJ motions that are going to get summarily denied.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
