Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

VIADA v. OSAKA HEALTH SPA

United States District Court, S.D. New York


December 9, 2005.

JUANA VIADA, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v.
OSAKA HEALTH SPA, INC., ET AL., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: KEVIN FOX, Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

Before the Court are motions in limine made by defendants Nam-Hi Lee and Myung-Hi Lee. Through these motions, the defendants seek to have the plaintiffs precluded from offering into evidence, at the trial of this action, writings and testimony that these defendants believe are the product of material "stolen from defendant Dr. Nam Hi Lee, M.D." The plaintiffs oppose the motions. They contend that the motions should be denied, in part, because they are premature and should be made only after the parties have completed their pretrial discovery activities. The plaintiffs also contend that the motions should be denied because the defendants failed to submit a memorandum of law in support of their respective motions, as required by Local Civil Rule 7.1 of this court.

A federal district court "has the power to exclude evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. . . . Unless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context." Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). In the case at bar, the motions in limine made by the two defendants identified above are vague in that they do not specify the writings or potential testimony that the movants believe should be excluded from the trial of this action. As a result, the Court is unable to determine, with any degree of certainty, whether the writings and testimony sought to be excluded from the trial would be inadmissible under any of the provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Therefore, the respective motions in limine are denied. However, the defendants are free to renew their respective motions in limine at the time of trial should they believe that a valid basis exists for excluding any evidence that the plaintiffs seem likely to offer at the trial of this action.*fn1

  SO ORDERED.

20051209

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.