A motion in limine is a pretrial motion that seeks the exclusion of specific evidence or arguments from being presented during a trial. The term derives from Latin, meaning "on or at the threshold" or "in the beginning," which reflects the motion's timing and function within legal proceedings. Black's Law Dictionary defines it as "a pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial".
The motion is decided by a judge outside the presence of the jury in both civil and criminal proceedings. A motion in limine can also be employed to gain admission of certain evidence rather than suppress it. Courts handle these motions at both state and federal levels, frequently using them at pretrial hearings or during trial.
The purpose centers on addressing potentially prejudicial, irrelevant, or inadmissible information that could unduly influence a jury or hinder the fair administration of justice. Attorneys file these motions to prevent the opposing side from presenting evidence that could be highly emotional or legally problematic, thereby avoiding potential prejudice. Motions in limine prove particularly valuable in cases where the mention of certain facts or information could taint the proceedings, with potential harm from their introduction being irreparable.
As a result of a successful motion in limine, the jury may never learn of the existence of inadmissible evidence, and counsel avoids objecting during trial, which could arouse jury suspicion and create additional prejudice. The motion eliminates noise surrounding a trial by preventing an opposing party from placing inadmissible evidence before the jury.
Neither court rules nor rules of evidence specifically provide for a motion in limine by name. However, the practice is referenced in MRE 103(b), which provides that once the court rules definitively on the record before or at trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal. Courts possess inherent discretion to decide preliminary evidentiary questions, with MRE 104(a) obligating trial courts to resolve such questions by determining whether evidence is admissible.
A motion in limine stands distinct from a motion for a protective order, which prevents the discovery of evidence, and a motion to suppress, which the defense raises in criminal trials to prevent admission of unconstitutionally obtained evidence.
Attorneys file motions in limine to shape the evidentiary boundaries of trial before jury selection begins. These strategic filings serve multiple purposes beyond simple evidence exclusion, functioning as tools to control trial proceedings and establish favorable conditions for their case presentation.
The primary function centers on preventing improper evidence from ever reaching the jury rather than attempting to undo damage after admission. Courts recognize the futility of trying to "unring the bell" once jurors have been exposed to damaging evidence, even when stricken by the court. Attorneys exclude testimony, documents, or references that would be unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or otherwise inadmissible under evidentiary rules. Evidence Code section 352 permits exclusion when probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability of undue prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury. The motion addresses potentially prejudicial, irrelevant, or inadmissible information that could unduly influence jury decisions, particularly when mere mention of certain facts could taint proceedings with irreparable harm.
Pretrial rulings eliminate disruption from needless objections and prevent the jury from being excused for offers of proof. Jurors may view counsel who make repeated objections as attempting to hide information, potentially damaging attorney credibility. Addressing controversial evidentiary questions outside jury presence avoids arousing suspicions and creating additional prejudice. Courts favor handling these issues prior to trial because it prevents mid-trial objections, mistrials, and curative instructions that may not fully mitigate harm.
Motions in limine clarify and simplify issues that need addressing before trial. Early rulings may affect pretrial disclosures, exhibit lists, deposition designations, voir dire conduct, or whether certain witnesses are called. Resolving controversial evidentiary questions through these motions advances meaningful settlement discussions.
Attorneys use these motions to educate the court about the case and potentially cause judges to question key aspects of an opponent's case. The filings provide opportunities to present support for cases and gain favor, even when evidence is not ultimately admitted. Motions preserve admissibility questions for appeal without requiring detailed objections at trial. They also enable attorneys to learn opponents' plans before trial, allowing development of stronger responses.
Arrested for a crime?
The filing timeline for motions in limine varies significantly across jurisdictions, with no uniform practice governing when these motions should be filed and served or when courts hear them. Timing and procedural requirements remain at the discretion of the trial judge.
Specific deadlines differ by court and jurisdiction. California courts require all motions in limine to be filed no later than 20 days before trial. Federal courts operate under different timeframes, with some requiring motions to be filed at least five working days before trial, while responses must be submitted at least two working days before trial. San Francisco Superior Court mandates service by mail at least 10 days before the trial date or personal service at least five days before trial.
Counsel must check local rules to determine exact timing requirements for filing and serving motions in limine, as each court and courtroom maintains different timing protocols. For example, in Los Angeles Superior Court personal injury cases assigned to specific departments, parties must comply with statutory notice provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 and local court rules before filing. Consequently, attorneys need to investigate whether any "local-local" rules exist, which are individual trial judges' own courtroom rules.
Attorneys should file motions in limine as soon as possible because once prejudicial evidence reaches a jury, the proverbial bell cannot be unrung. Although judges may offer curative instructions to address prejudice, such instructions rarely remedy the problem. Courts generally make rulings on these motions outside the presence of the jury in both civil and criminal proceedings.
The timing of when courts hear motions in limine also varies substantially. Some courts conduct hearings shortly before the first day of trial, while others address them on the trial day itself. Judges may make last-minute changes regarding when motions will be heard. Courts sometimes defer ruling until hearing trial evidence and developing a better understanding of the issues, particularly when trial judges are new to the case or unfamiliar with the evidence sought for exclusion.
Attorneys must determine whether the trial judge has standing orders regarding pretrial motions and, if none exist, contact the judge's clerk to learn about specific requirements.
Effective drafting of motions in limine requires precision and clarity in identifying both the evidence sought for exclusion and the legal basis supporting that request. The strongest motions target discrete exhibits, lines of testimony, or specific themes rather than seeking to exclude vague categories of information.
The caption and opening sentence must identify the specific evidence or argument the motion seeks to preclude. Rather than titling a motion as "Motion in Limine to Exclude Prejudicial Evidence about Plaintiff," attorneys should use descriptive titles such as "Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence that Plaintiff Sought Treatment at a Drug Rehabilitation Center Prior to Incident". Courts require motions to narrowly tailor relief requests and identify with exactness the specific evidence, testimony, or statements for exclusion. Referencing specific exhibits or Bates numbers eases the burden on both trial courts and appellate courts.
The motion should open with a concise statement explaining what evidence faces challenge, followed immediately by the legal grounds for exclusion. A well-organized structure includes a clear case caption and title, a statement of evidence to exclude with legal basis, and a memorandum of points and authorities. The factual background section must include all facts necessary for the judge to resolve every issue raised, providing an overview of the case while highlighting facts specifically relevant to the motion.
Citations to applicable rules of evidence or case law form essential components. The argument section applies case facts to legal rules and precedent, explaining why courts should rule favorably. Separate point headings should distinguish between different pieces of evidence and different legal arguments for each evidentiary issue. Supporting evidence, facts, affidavits, exhibits, police reports, or pictures should attach as appendices, with citations to this material appearing in the statement of facts.
Broad, boilerplate motions that appear to preempt an entire case are unlikely to succeed and may irritate courts. Judges frequently deny vague requests for relief, and opposing parties may reinterpret or mischaracterize ambiguous rulings at trial. Attorneys should request specific rulings in the conclusion rather than asking courts to exclude general categories.
Improper use of motions in limine wastes time, money, and effort, and can potentially harm a client's case. Several recurring errors undermine the effectiveness of these filings and frustrate trial courts.
Attorneys should not file motions seeking exclusion of evidence that is already clearly inadmissible under existing law. Such motions waste judicial resources on obvious matters that can be addressed quickly through trial objections. Motions that merely restate established legal principles serve no purpose. Examples include seeking to preclude non-designated experts from testifying, preventing lay witnesses from offering opinion testimony, or excluding undisclosed evidence except for impeachment purposes. Filing generic restatements of law annoys trial judges and risks burying genuinely important motions in a sea of unnecessary ones. Courts view these motions as lacking substantive value when they simply declare existing evidentiary rules without addressing specific factual circumstances.
Courts disfavor motions seeking to exclude vast categories of evidence as part of massive omnibus filings. These motions typically request advisory rulings on numerous evidence categories simultaneously, creating inefficiency. Trial judges express frustration with counsel who submit excessive motions when only two or three require serious judicial attention. Attorneys should instead place general discussions in trial briefs rather than filing dozens of precautionary motions. Motions in limine are frequently overused and prove ineffective when they lack specificity.
Filing a motion in limine that effectively disposes of an element of a claim or defense constitutes harmful error unless summary judgment timing provisions and standards are satisfied. Courts increasingly encounter defendants misusing these motions as substitutes for dispositive motions that should have been filed earlier. This practice represents a perversion of process that risks blindsiding the non-moving party and may infringe on constitutional jury trial rights.
Counsel must verify local rules governing filing deadlines, as requirements vary significantly across jurisdictions and individual courtrooms.
A granted motion in limine prohibits the opposing party from referencing the excluded evidence without first approaching the judge for a ruling outside the jury's presence. This restriction extends to opening and closing statements, preventing any allusion to the forbidden subject matter. Orders granting these motions have been broadly construed as precluding all references to the excluded evidence.
Rulings on motions in limine are interlocutory rather than final decisions on admissibility. Courts may change their rulings during trial, particularly if actual testimony differs from what was proffered or if circumstances evolve as the case unfolds. The interlocutory nature means judges retain discretion to alter previous rulings, even when nothing unexpected occurs at trial.
Courts may partially grant motions, excluding some requested evidence while admitting other portions. When making this distinction, the judge specifies which pieces of evidence are excluded and which are admitted, providing clarity for trial strategy.
The party who prevailed on the motion may introduce the excluded evidence, but doing so opens the door for the opposing side to explore the issue before the jury. Failure to comply with an order granting a motion in limine may constitute contempt of court. When a motion is granted against a party, counsel should proffer the excluded evidence as completely as possible through deposition testimony, expert reports, live witness testimony, or narrative descriptions. A criminal defense attorney can help ensure that the excluded evidence is properly preserved and presented.
Don't face
the prosecutor alone
"*" indicates required fields
