UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SHANA DOTY, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 20-60972-CIV-SINGHAL/VALLE

ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY 

SERVICES, and TELESFORO AVILES,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

RANDY DOTY, 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 21-80645-CIV-SINGHAL/VALLE

ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY

SERVICES and TELESFORO AVILES, 

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon ADT LLC’s Omnibus Motion in Limine 

(DE [193]). Plaintiffs have filed a response in opposition. (DE [208]). Each topic ADT 

seeks to exclude is set forth below.

1. ADT moves to preclude evidence, argument, or testimony regarding the 

details of Aviles’ conduct with regard to other households or customers. ADT does not 

specify exactly what evidence it is considering, except to say that it could result in 214 

mini-trials. The Court declines to rule on the admissibility of evidence with such a broad 

description. The scope of Aviles’ conduct is relevant, but the particulars may not be. The 

rules of relevancy will protect the jury from hearing 214 mini trials. Accordingly, the Motion 

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to this evidence, assuming Plaintiffs establish

relevancy.

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2022 Page 1 of 4
2

2. ADT moves to exclude evidence or testimony regarding ADT documents that 

post-date the incident. The motion fails to identify the particular documents at issue and 

the Court cannot make a bright line ruling that all documents that post-date the incident

are irrelevant. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to this evidence. ADT 

may, of course, object at trial on the basis of relevancy.

3. ADT seeks to exclude any evidence, argument, or cross-examination regarding 

ADT’s subsequent remedial measures such as post-incident changes to ADT Pulse. The 

Federal Rules of Evidence do not contain a blanket prohibition on evidence of subsequent 

remedial measures. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to this evidence. 

Admissibility of subsequent remedial measures is determined by Fed. R. Evid. 407. ADT

may raise appropriate objections at trial and request the Court to instruct the jury as to 

any evidence of subsequent remedial measures that is admitted.

4. ADT seeks an order barring Plaintiffs from presenting any evidence, 

argument, or cross-examination regarding ADT’s settlements with other customers or 

communications with customers besides Ms. Doty. The Motion is GRANTED IN PART 

AND DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART as to this evidence. Evidence of 

settlements with other customers will not be admitted. Communications with other 

customers may be admissible, subject to relevancy and other rules of evidence. ADT may 

raise appropriate objections at trial.

5. ADT asks the Court to preclude any evidence, argument, or crossexamination speculating that images or video of the Doty family was distributed or posted 

online. ADT argues that there is no evidence that videos or images were shared online 

and, therefore, testimony about the possibility is speculative, unsupported, and may 

confuse the issues or mislead the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Plaintiffs argue that this is a 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2022 Page 2 of 4
3

legitimate fear of theirs and has contributed to their emotional distress. Plaintiffs’ fears 

and the uncertainty of knowing whether images were shared likely has probative value

that outweighs the damages of confusion of issues or misleading the jury. And, again, 

the Court cannot rule on admissibility of testimony that it has not heard. The motion will 

be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to this evidence. ADT may raise appropriate 

objections at trial.

6. ADT asks the Court to preclude any evidence, argument, or crossexamination involving litigation conduct, class allegations, or expert opinions beyond 

those disclosed in discovery. The Court cannot discern what evidence ADT refers to but 

can state that pre-trial matters will not be re-litigated at trial. Evidence of discovery and 

class action issues have no relevance to this case. But, without more information, the 

Motion will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to this evidence. ADT may raise 

appropriate objections at trial.

7. ADT argues that the Court should exclude the “Factual Resume” from 

Aviles’ criminal prosecution as irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and inadmissible hearsay. 

ADT argues that it details Aviles’ conduct involving five other customers, not the Dotys. 

Plaintiffs argue that Aviles is a party to this litigation and the Factual Resume falls within 

the Rule 804(b)(3) hearsay exception. As the Court has not reviewed the Factual 

Resume, the court will DEFER RULING on this issue.

For the reasons discussed above, it is hereby

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2022 Page 3 of 4
4

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that ADT’s Omnibus Motion in Limine (DE [193]) is 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 25th day of 

March 2022.

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 243 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2022 Page 4 of 4