“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....” Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 171 Cal.App.4th 336, 375 (2009) (citations omitted).

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. Dept. of Trans., 201 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1480-81 (2011); Clemens v. Am. Warranty Corp., 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 451 (1987); Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Super. Ct., 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 288 (1988).

Evidence Code section 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. People v. Cardenas, 31 Cal.3d 897, 904 (1982).

Evidence Code section 402 provides that a court may hear and determine the admissibility of evidence outside the presence or hearing of the jury. Mize v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 46 Cal.App.3d 436, 448 (1975).

The court's rulings are the result of its careful review of the parties' briefing; the 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. Kelly v. New West Fed. Savings, 49 Cal. App. 4th 659 (1996). 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 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).

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.” Kinda v. Carpenter, 247 Cal.App.4th 1268, 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”).

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); R&B Auto Center, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc., 140 Cal. App. 4th 327, 371 (2006).

In limine rulings are not binding and are subject to reconsideration upon full information at trial. Cristler v. Express Messenger Sys., Inc., 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 89-90 n.6 (2009).