United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD WEBBER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motions in
Limine [ECF No. 386], Defendant James R. Leininger's
Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Argument Regarding
his Counsel's Prior Representation of Other Defendants
[ECF No. 390], Defendant James R. Leininger's Motion in
Limine to Preclude Evidence or Argument Regarding His
Personal Monetary Wealth [ECF No. 391], and Defendant James
R. Leininger's Motion in Limine to Preclude
Plaintiffs' from Offering Party and Non-Party Document
Productions into Evidence [ECF No. 392].
Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine [ECF No. 386]
their motion, Plaintiffs raise thirteen motions in limine.
The Court will address each individually.
ask the Court to prohibit Defendants from making any
arguments which could be considered jury nullification. The
Court cannot make a ruling on this motion at this time,
because it is too broad. It will be held in abeyance to be
ruled during trial when the parties object to specific
ask the Court to prohibit individual defendants from arguing
they are protected from liability because they were acting on
behalf of a corporation. The role of individual defendants
and the corporations for which they worked is relevant to the
issues in this trial. Defense counsel is prohibited from
stating in opening statement, or any time after, his or her
client is protected from liability because the client was
acting on behalf of a corporation, without prior approval of
the Court to do so. This motion will be held in abeyance
until the Court makes specific rulings pending the receipt of
Amount of Damages
ask the Court to prohibit Defendants from mentioning the
amount of damages per call or in total. Defendants are
prohibited from mentioning the amount of damages in opening
statements or during the presentation of evidence before
first obtaining a ruling of the Court allowing statements
related to damages or evidence related to damages. The Court
cannot make a determination on this issue until evidence has
developed; therefore, the motion will be held in abeyance.
ask the Court to prohibit Defendants from arguing the
telephone calls did not injure or harm Plaintiffs. The Court
has previously determined Plaintiffs were harmed. However,
this does not prohibit questioning of Plaintiffs as to any
experiences related to the telephone messages. Defendants
shall not argue Plaintiffs were not harmed, but will be
permitted to inquire into Plaintiffs experience with the
telemarketing campaign. This motion will be granted, in part,
and denied, in part.
argue Defendants should not be allowed to introduce evidence
an answering machine answered the robocalls. The Court has
already determined Plaintiffs were harmed even though they
did not answer the telephone call at issue. Defendants will
not be permitted to argue Plaintiffs were not harmed.
However, Defendants are allowed to present evidence regarding
what Plaintiffs heard, who answered the ...