United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
LYNN WINMILL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
the Court are Defendants' First and Second Motions in
Limine (Dkts. 65, 86). For the reasons explained below, the
Court will grant the First Motion in Limine and grant in part
and deny in part the Second Motion in Limine.
11, 2014, Cody was involved in a physical altercation with
four Boise City Police Department officers. He claims they
used excessive force during the altercation. The matter is
scheduled for trial on September 24, 2018.
is no express authority for motions in limine in either the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of
Evidence. Nevertheless, these motions are well recognized in
practice and by case law. See, e.g., Ohler v. United
States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 (2000). The key function of a
motion in limine is to “exclude prejudicial evidence
before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v.
United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 (1984).
Motion in Limine No. 1: Expert Witnesses
their first motion in limine, defendants ask for an order
“preventing the Plaintiff from calling any expert
witnesses not timely and properly disclosed and from
introducing any medical records not provided to Defendants
through seasonable supplementation.” Dkt. 65, at 2.
Cody does not oppose this motion.
disclosure of expert witnesses is required by Rule 26(a)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 26(a)(2)(A)
provides as follows:
(A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by
Rules 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties
the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present
evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A). The disclosure of an expert
witness must be accompanied by a report containing a synopsis
of the expert's opinion and the basis of the opinion,
unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise.
R. 26(a)(2)(B). In general, a party must disclose the expert
witness and report “at the times and in the sequence
that the court orders.” R. 26(a)(2)(D). However, when
the expert witness will present rebuttal testimony, the party
must disclose the expert witness “within 30 days after
the other party's [expert] disclosure.” R.
26(a)(2)(D)(ii). The parties have a continuing obligation to
provide supplemental disclosures if the expert's opinion,
or basis thereof, is modified. See Id. R.
26(a)(2)(E) (“The parties must supplement these
disclosures when required under Rule 26(e)”). Failure
to provide proper and timely disclosure of an expert witness,
may result in sanctions, including exclusion of the
expert's testimony. Id. R. 37(c)(1).
expert reports were due in 2016. Cody has not identified any
expert witnesses; he has not supplied any expert reports; he
has not asked for an extension of the applicable deadlines;
and he does not argue that any failures were substantially
justified or harmless. Accordingly, the Court will grant
defendants' First Motion in Limine. See generally
Hilborn v. Metropolitan Group Property & Cas. Ins.
Co., No. 2:12-cv-00636-BLW, 2014 WL 4073224, at *1 (D.