As we will explain in each of the following replies, we believe that is precisely what the motions present. Obviously, where the determination turns on hearing the evidence first, it is necessary to hear the evidence first but where the dispute involves questions of law or evidentiary standards or the scope or purpose of evidence, and there is no genuine dispute as to what the evidence at issue is, the determination can be made without hearing the evidence. In that context, motions in limine commonly are used to resolve legal questions and set evidentiary standards beforehand, or to determine the purpose for which certain evidence may or may not be used or inferences that may or may not be made from particular evidence, which usually makes for a more expeditious and informed trial. Indeed, there is no a priori limitation on what a motion in limine can ask for: They can and are used all the time for all kinds of purposes-and nothing cited by the response is to the contrary. Hence, while they commonly are used to exclude evidence, they also can be used to have: evidence declared admissible trial procedures determined jury instructions or other rulings of law determined and limitations put on the uses for particular evidence (e.g., declaring the purposes for which the evidence might be used). In short, motions in limine are motions filed before the case begins to resolve any kind of issues that might impact the trial or the ultimate outcome. However, the term "in limine," which comes from the French, does not mean "to limit" it means: "On or at the threshold at the very beginning preliminarily." Black's Law Dictionary 896 (rev. Thus, the response apparently is of the view that motions in limine are confined to exclusion of evidence. The response has an unduly narrow, and ultimately wrong, conception of what motions in limine are. The response argues in the negative and these replies argue in the affirmative. Thus, the overriding question before the Court is: Whether the issues posed by the motions can and should be resolved in advance of taking evidence to sharpen and focus the trial. While there is a sharp dispute between the parties as to most of the issues raised by these motions, it appears that: (i) the differences in the main involve questions of law and legal and evidentiary standards that will have to be resolved at some point (defendants ask that that be done after trial) and (ii) resolving them now will have a significant impact on the trial and the outcome of the case (defendants effectively concede this). This brief replies to defendants' responses to our motions in limine nos. Testimony of Finley Board Member (Moody).Testimony of Finley Board Member (Chesterman).Testimony of Mercy's Chief Financial Officer (Guetzko).3 and 4 (Non-Profit Status Community Representatives) Reply in Support of United States' Motions in Limine (Nos. MERCY HEALTH SERVICES and FINLEY TRI-STATES HEALTH GROUP, INC., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content), and PDF (comparable to original document formatting), and WordPerfect.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |