“In limine motions are designed to facilitate the management of a case, generally by deciding difficult evidentiary issues in advance of trial.... The usual purpose of motions in limine is to preclude the presentation of evidence deemed inadmissible and prejudicial by the moving party. A typical order in limine excludes the challenged evidence and directs counsel, parties, and witnesses not to refer to the excluded matters during trial.... The advantage of such motions is to avoid the obviously futile attempt to ‘unring the bell’ in the event a motion to strike is granted in the proceedings before the jury.... What in limine motions are not designed to do is to replace the dispositive motions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. It has become increasingly common, however, for litigants to utilize in limine motions for this purpose. These nontraditional in limine motions can result in a court’s dismissing a cause on the pleadings.” Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1593 (citations omitted); Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 171 Cal.App.4th 336, 375 (2009).

A court has the inherent power to grant a motion in limine to exclude “any kind of evidence which could be objected to at trial, either as irrelevant or subject to discretionary exclusion as unduly prejudicial.” Ceja v. Department of Transportation, 201 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1480-81 (2011); Clemens v. American Warranty Corp., 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 451 (1987); Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Superior Court, 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 288 (1988).

Evidence Code § 352 allows a court to exclude evidence if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the possibility the evidence will necessitate undue consumption of time or will create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. See People v. Cardenas, 31 Cal.3d 897, 904 (1982). Evidence Code § 402 provides that a court may hear and determine the admissibility of evidence outside the presence or hearing of the jury. See Mize v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 46 Cal.App.3d 436, 448 (1975).

When the trial court grants a motion in limine that disposes of a case or cause of action, the result is reviewed as if the court granted a motion for nonsuit after opening statement or a motion for directed verdict, “keeping in mind that the grant of such a motion is not favored, that a key consideration is that the nonmoving party has had a full and fair opportunity to state all the facts in its favor, and that all inferences and conflicts in the evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party.” Id. at 1279-80 (noting that a motion for nonsuit is subject to the same standard as a directed verdict); Eng v. Brown, 21 Cal.App.5th 675, 698 (2018) (motion in limine seeking a finding that three persons formed a partnership “was more akin to a partial directed verdict on the issue of partnership formation”).

Admittedly, reviewing courts “are ‘becoming increasingly wary of this tactic’ in large part because the procedural shortcuts ‘circumvent procedural protections provided by the statutory motions or by trial on the merits; … risk blindsiding the nonmoving party; and, in some cases, … could infringe a litigant’s right to a jury trial.’” Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell, 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 173 (2017). Recent appellate cases have been critical of trial courts which have allowed parties to utilize motions in limine as disguised motions for summary judgment or premature nonsuit motions. See, e.g. City of Livermore v. Baca, 205 Cal.App.4th 1460 (2012); Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1595; R&B Auto Center, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc., 140 Cal. App. 4th 327, 371 (2006).

“In spite of the obvious drawbacks to the use of in limine motions to dispose of a claim, trial courts do have inherent power to use them in this way.” Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1595 (2008). Such use of the in limine proceeding is within the trial court’s “inherent power to control litigation and conserve judicial resources.” Kinda v. Carpenter, 247 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1279-80 (2016).

Motions in limine are sometimes dubbed vague and premature. See generally Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 670.

When the court grants a motion in limine excluding evidence, it thereby instructs counsel not to raise the excluded matter in opening statement, the questioning of witnesses, or closing argument. It also thereby instructs counsel to instruct witnesses not to volunteer or otherwise mention the excluded matter. No reference to the filing or granting of the motion is permitted.

The court’s rulings are subject to revision as the trial progresses, as foundations are laid, and as the court becomes more acquainted with the details of the evidence. See Kelly v. New West Fed. Savings, 49 Cal. App. 4th 659 (1996). In limine rulings are not binding and are subject to reconsideration upon full information at trial. Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 89-90 n. 6 (2009). Rulings on in limine motions are by their nature tentative. Tudor Ranches, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 65 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1430 (1998).

In the event there are uncooperative parties who will not meet and confer or comply with the joint document preparation requirements or for self-represented parties, Motions in Limine are to be served by mail with notice compliant with CCP §§ 1005 and 1013 and the parties may unilaterally comply by filing separate trial documents. However, the court will impose monetary and/or evidentiary sanctions for a represented party’s failure to comply in good faith.