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 Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude 

Certain Evidence (DE [194]). Defendant ADT, LLC (“ADT”) has filed a response. 

(DE [207]). Each topic Plaintiffs wish to exclude is set forth below.

1. Plaintiffs seek to exclude reference or argument that the use of “installation” 

or “service” mode was a standard industry practice, common in the alarm system, or 

industry custom. ADT argues that this topic is included in its expert’s report. The Motion 

is DENIED as to this evidence, assuming Defendant establishes relevancy and a proper

admissible foundation.

2. Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence or argument that the Dotys are still ADT 

customers, still use ADT’s Pulse System, and/or still use the ADT camera in their home. 

The motion is DENIED as to this evidence.

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2022 Page 1 of 3
2

3. Plaintiffs seek to exclude any reference to or evidence of prior criminal 

convictions of Randy Doty. Plaintiffs argue that Doty’s convictions are beyond the 10-

year cap and do not meet the requirement for admissibility in Rule 609(b). Evidence of a 

conviction may be admitted after 10 years if (1) the probative value, supported by specific 

facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect and (2) the 

proponent gave written notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity 

to contest its use. Fed. R. Evid. 609(b).

ADT does not assert that it gave written notice of its intent to use this evidence, 

but Plaintiff has raised the issue prior to trial. Plaintiffs have, therefore, had fair 

opportunity to contest its use. As for probative value, ADT argues that Doty was not 

forthcoming about the number and type of convictions at his deposition and that this 

evasiveness is probative. ADT also argues that Doty’s experiences while incarcerated 

are relevant to the issue of invasion of privacy.

The Court finds, at this time, that the probative value of this evidence does not 

substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect. The Motion is GRANTED as to this evidence. 

If, however, ADT finds it necessary to and, does in fact, introduce other means of 

impeachment that contradicts testimony given at trial by Mr. Doty, the Court may entertain 

a motion to reconsider this ruling.

4. Plaintiffs seek an order barring ADT from introducing the testimony of any 

witness who was not deposed during the fact discovery period. This is not a valid basis 

for excluding testimony. The Motion is DENIED as to this evidence. This ruling is not 

applicable to any witness who was not disclosed as required by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2022 Page 2 of 3
3

For the reasons discussed above, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain 

Evidence (DE [194]) 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 244 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2022 Page 3 of 3