SECTION 18 | MOTIONS IN LIMINE (MIL)

(“Motions in Limine can serve an important function in streamlining a trial. The excessive use of them, however, can clog the docket and become a trap. Boilerplate motions in limine filed early in a case have dramatically increased since the amendment of section 90.104, Florida Statutes in 2003. This amendment modified the rule requiring a contemporaneous objection to preserve an objection to the admission of evidence on appeal…. Civil litigants now attempt to obtain blanket rulings well in advance of trial on every conceivable reason to object to evidence at trial, whether or not those matters apply to the facts of the case. Therefore, when the trial is held later, litigants believe that they do not have to object at all, and appellate issues will still be preserved. Trial judges may be put in the position of having to sua sponte strike evidence or hazard an appellate reversal with the requirement of a new trial…. Trial judges do not have to consider such motions well in advance of trial. Many times, they should not rule in advance. Evidentiary issues often depend upon the context in which they are raised or the other evidence which is admitted or developed through discovery. Where evidence excluded by a prior order in limine is admitted inadvertently, simply because it was not pointed out to the trial court that the evidence violated the order, this provides an appealable issue and an opportunity for a new trial, even though the error could have been easily corrected had it been pointed out by the parties. To prevent that from occurring in this case, the trial judge astutely required the parties to object to any evidence sought to be excluded. Because the Plaintiff did not object, this issue was not preserved for appeal”).