Opinion
Case Number 04-10149-BC.
September 1, 2005
ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN MOTIONS IN LIMINE BY DEFENDANT
On August 15, 2005, defendant The Roho Group filed six motions styled as motions in limine. The motions ask for the court to hold (1) that the defendant is entitled to a presumption that it is not liable under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2946; (2) that the plaintiff's recovery should be limited by the lower damage cap contained in Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2946a; (3) that the higher damage cap in Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2949a does not apply to it; (4) that the plaintiff is more than fifty percent responsible for his injuries and failed to mitigate; (5) that the defendant was not grossly negligent; and (6) that the plaintiff is not entitled to economic damages. Although these motions are styled and denominated as motions in limine, they seek relief that is allowable only under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and therefore they must be considered motions for summary judgment. Because the deadline for filing such motions has expired and the Court has not modified the Case Management and Scheduling Order in that respect, the motions will be dismissed.
The Sixth Circuit has confirmed the basic proposition that "[t]he substance of the motion, rather than its form, controls our inquiry." Brown v. Local 58, Int'l Bhd. Of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 76 F.3d 762, 768 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that a motion that asked the lower court to alter the judgment must be considered under Rule 59, with its consequent impact of the appeal deadline, despite the movant's failure to denominate it as such). Because the substance of the defendant's motions in this case addresses the merits of parts of the plaintiff's claims and seeks a determination of those merits without a trial, the Court can find no other procedural category for such motions than summary judgment or partial summary judgment.
Another court, when confronted with a similar issue, provided guidance that the Court finds helpful. In United States v. Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp., 74 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (Ct. Int'l. Tr. 1999), the plaintiff filed a motion in limine seeking a ruling that the defendant's allegedly false representations to Customs were "material" as a matter of law. Although the court did consider whether materiality under a certain statute was a question of fact for a jury, the court refused to address aspects of the plaintiff's motion arguing that it was "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp., 74 F. Supp. 2d at 1312 n. 3. The court explained that the motion was a motion for partial summary judgment that was "ineffective in the present procedural posture" of the case. Ibid. The court noted that the deadline for filing summary judgment motions in that case was June 29, 1998, but the plaintiff did not file its motion until after that date:
A motion in limine, which is defined as "[a] pretrial motion requesting court to prohibit opposing counsel from referring to or offering evidence on matters so highly prejudicial to moving party that curative instructions cannot prevent predispositional effect on jury," Black's Legal Dictionary 1013 (6th ed. 1990), is not the proper vehicle for such dispositive arguments.
Thus, in considering Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, the Court cannot, and does not, consider whether the Plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of materiality based on the facts brought forth in its supporting affidavits. Should Plaintiff believe that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of materiality, it may make an appropriate motion under USCIT R. 50(a) once Defendant has been fully heard on the issue at trial.Id. at 1312-13 n. 3.
The same reasoning applies here. The defendant's motions are properly considered as motions for summary judgment and should have been filed on or before June 14, 2005, according to the Case Management and Scheduling Order. The present motions therefore were filed out of time.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant's motion for an order that the defendant is entitled to a presumption that it is not liable under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2946 [dkt # 80], motion that plaintiff's recovery should be limited by the lower damage cap contained in Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2946a [dkt # 72], motion that the higher damage cap in Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2949a does not apply to it [dkt # 68], motion for a finding that plaintiff is more than fifty percent responsible for his injuries and failed to mitigate [dkt # 69], motion to hold that the defendant was not grossly negligent [dkt # 70], and motion for a ruling that plaintiff is not entitled to economic damages [dkt # 77] are DISMISSED.