Motion in Limine in Louisiana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion in Limine

“Under La.Code Evid. art. 402, [a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, and [e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible." (See Shaw v. Alexandria Inv. Grp., LLC (2017) 248 So. 3d 332, 335.)

“Pursuant to this scheme, the normal criterion for the admissibility of evidence is simply that it be relevant." (See id; La.Code Evid. art. 402, comment (c).)

"‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." (Shaw v. Alexandria Inv. Grp., LLC (2017) 248 So. 3d 332, 335; La.Code Evid. art. 401.)

“A party may seek a pre-trial ruling on the admissibility of evidence through the use of a motion in limine.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion in Limine

“The district court has great discretion in its consideration of evidentiary matters such as a motion in limine.” (See Wehrlin ex rel. Wehrlin v. Manitowoc Co., Inc., 2014 CA 0428, at *8 (La. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).)

“On review, the appellate court must determine whether the district court abused its great discretion in ruling on a motion in limine.” (See id; Cooper v. Public Belt Railroad (2003) 2002-2051 839 So.2d 181, 183.)

“Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or waste of time.” (See Wehrlin ex rel. Wehrlin v. Manitowoc Co., Inc., 2014 CA 0428, at *8 (La. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017); La. C.E. art. 403; Taylor v. Dowling Gosslee & Associates, Inc. (2009) 44,654 (La. App. 2 Cir. 10/7/09), 22 So.3d 246, 253, writ denied, 2009-2420 (La. 2/5/10), 27 So.3d 299.)

“The party alleging prejudice by the evidentiary ruling of the district court bears the burden of so proving. On appeal, the reviewing court is required to consider whether the particular ruling complained of was erroneous and if so, whether the error prejudiced the complaining party's cause.” (See Wehrlin ex rel. Wehrlin v. Manitowoc Co., Inc., 2014 CA 0428, at *8 (La. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2017).)

“If a substantial right was not prejudiced or affected by the evidentiary ruling, a reversal is not warranted.” (See id; La. C.E. art. 103.)

“Therefore, we must determine whether the alleged erroneous evidentiary ruling, when compared to the record in its totality, had a substantial effect on the outcome of the case to the defendants' detriment.” (See id; Schexnayder v. Bridges, 2015-0786 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/26/16), 190 So.3d 764, 770-71.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion in Limine

It is also well settled that “a court's ruling on a motion in limine is an evidentiary matter.” (See Young v. Supplier Services, LLC (2014) 141 So. 3d 288, 291.)

As such, “a judgment that does not determine the merits but only preliminary matters in the course of the action is an interlocutory judgment. A motion in limine presents an evidentiary matter that is subject to the great discretion of the trial court. It is well-settled that prior to final judgment, a trial court may change the result of interlocutory rulings it finds to be erroneous.” (See Davis v. Wheeler (2020) 293 So. 3d 173, 180; La. C.C.P. art. 1841; Heller v. Nobel Ins. Grp. , 00-0261 (La. 2/2/00), 753 So. 2d 841 ; Taylor v. Dowling Gosslee & Assocs., Inc. , 44,654 (La. App. 2 Cir. 10/7/09), 22 So. 3d 246, writ denied , 09-2420 (La. 2/5/10), 27 So. 3d 299; VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-0462 (La. 11/28/01), 801 So. 2d 331.)