A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware

Jaroslav Devia, Unsplash

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.


Similar Posts