United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are two motions in limine filed by Michael Parker
and Debra Parker, Doc. #59; Doc. #60; to which Kaiva, LLC,
responded in opposition.
In Limine Standard
purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to
rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance
of certain forecasted evidence. Evidence should not be
excluded in limine unless it is clearly inadmissible on all
potential grounds.” Harkness v. Bauhaus U.S.A.,
Inc., No. 3:13-cv-129, 2015 WL 631512, at *1 (N.D. Miss.
Feb. 13, 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks
Parkers seek to exclude at trial any reference to the comment
Michael Parker made in his December 3, 2016, deposition that
“a Patel is a Patel is a Patel.” Doc. #59 at 2.
Specifically, they argue that, under Federal Rule of Evidence
403, the comment is unfairly prejudicial because it
“would be taken as derogatory towards a particular
ethnic group.” Id. at 2.
403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more
of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
presenting cumulative evidence.
unfair prejudice, substantially outweighing
probative value … permits exclusion of relevant matter
under Rule 403.” United States v. Barnes, 803
F.3d 209, 221 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting United
States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115 (5th Cir. 1993)).
responds that the comment is supposed to show Michael's
“reluctance” to deal with
“Indian-American” franchisees. Doc. #56 at 1.
Kaiva argues that such is of consequence because the parties
agreed to sell the subway franchise Kaiva operated to a third
party and, in an attempt to consummate that agreement, Kaiva
referred several “Indian-Americans” to the
Parkers as potential buyers but the sale never occurred.
Parkers fail to address the probative value of the proffered
comment as argued by Kaiva and thus do not address whether
any unfair prejudicial effect it may cause substantially
outweighs any probative value it may have as required for
exclusion under Rule 403. Accordingly, the Court cannot
conclude that the comment is clearly inadmissible on all
grounds. Therefore, the motion to exclude the Patel comment
will be denied.
also seek to exclude at trial “any reference to the
unsupported accusation by WREG News, or anyone else, that
Defendant Michael Parker was fired from his job … for
skimming money.” Doc. #60 at 2-3. In response, Kaiva
concedes that neither the WREG News broadcast itself nor the
challenged accusations contained within the broadcast are
relevant. As such, Kaiva represents that it will not
seek to introduce the accusations contained within that news
broadcast or those same accusations made anywhere else.
Defendants' motion on this subject will therefore be
denied as moot.