The Court has held in the past that motions in limine cannot be used to bring stealth summary judgment or Daubert motions after the deadlines for those motions (we first posted about this issue over four years ago—wow).
Last week, this issue came up again, this time with a party overtly asking the Court for two additional MILs, beyond the default three, specifically to address summary judgment issues. Unsurprisingly, the Court did not grant the motion:
Defendants seek . . . permission to file two motions in limine beyond the three motions in limine permitted by the Scheduling Order. . . . In Defendants' words: "Two requests will seek to exclude certain exhibits and testimony at trial and three request[s] will seek the Court's consideration of the legal defenses raised in the Motions for Summary Judg[]ment." D.I. 64 at 3. In other words, Defendants want to file two motions in limine and three motions for summary judgment. Defendants' motions for summary judgment were previously denied (twice) because of their lawyer's failure to comply (twice) with the rules and procedures of the Court. A motion in limine is not a vehicle to "seek the Court's consideration of [] legal defenses raised in [] Motions for Summary Judg[]ment." Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Additional Motions in Limine (D.I. 64) is DENIED.
The Estate of Edward Bovee v. Corporal Sam Wilks, C.A. No. 23-192-CFC, D.I. 70 (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2024).
If you are wondering about the part where the defendants' SJ motions we previously denied, twice, we posted about that in July. But I can't imagine the result would be any different if the defendant hadn't previously moved for summary judgment.
Motions in limine tend to be precious. They can steer the course of trial if granted. But you only get three, and parties often have more than three relevant evidentiary issues, particularly in IP cases. It's fortunate for the party here that it moved for additional motions, rather than just bringing its 1-3 MILs on SJ issues only for the Court to deny them. At least this way they can still bring all three MILs on their evidentiary issues.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
