MONY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
PEREZ
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted some motions in limine, denied others, and granted-in-part another, ruling on the admissibility of various anticipated evidence.
The parties filed numerous motions in limine seeking to exclude anticipated evidence before trial. These motions addressed issues such as photos of an…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Case In Chief cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bernard R. Perez’s Motions in Limine (Dkts. 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311, 332, 333) and Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant MONY Life Insurance Company (“MONY”) and Counter-Defendant Davies Life & Health, Inc.’s (“DLH”)1 Omnibus Motion in Limine (Dkt. 310). In addition to these motions, the Court reviewed several responses2 and replies3 filed by the parties. A motion in limine is a “motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). Given these motions are generally disfavored, “[e]vidence is excluded upon a motion in limine only if the evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose.” Acevedo v. NCL (Bah.) Ltd., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1188, 1192 (S.D. Fla. 2017). However, rulings on motions in limine are subject to change when the case unfolds. Luce, 469 U.S. at 41. Upon careful consideration, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Photo (Dkt. 301) is
GRANTED. Photos and other evidence of the arrest discussed in this motion are irrelevant. 2. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine Regarding Fine Dining (Dkt. 302) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will consider contemporaneous
objections at trial.
332) is DENIED. With Dr. Perez having personal knowledge of the otherwise undisclosed deposition evidence and the facts underlying MONY’s theory of damages developed during discovery, the admission of this evidence is harmless and need not be excluded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). 11. Dr. Perez’s Motion in Limine Regarding Untimely Expert Opinions (Dkt. 333) is GRANTED. Given they were not timely disclosed, Dr. Brodner and John Hoffman may only testify as rebuttal experts. They may not offer expert testimony in MONY’s case-in-chief. 12. MONY and DLH’s Omnibus Motion in Limine (Dkt. 310) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. The motion is
GRANTED to the extent that it seeks exclusion of any reference to DLH’s employees being unlicensed insurance adjusters, as Dr. Perez agrees that such evidence should not be introduced. The motion is
DENIED in that it seeks exclusion of the term “cancer survivor.” The motion is DENIED without prejudice to the extent that it seeks to exclude the specialty letters.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 30, 2022.
/s/ William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984)
- Acevedo v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1188 (S.D. Fla. 2017)