UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

VILMA MARQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL FIRE AND MARINE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Vilma Marquez’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion in 

Limine to Exclude any Reference to or Evidence or Testimony About any Prejudice Allegedly 

Caused by Roof Shrink Wrap, ECF No. [34] (“Motion”). Defendant National Fire and Marine 

Insurance Company (“Defendant”) filed a response in opposition, ECF No. [42] (“Response”), to 

which Plaintiff replied, ECF No. [44] (“Reply”). In addition, on July 7, 2021, the Court held a 

hearing on the Motion, among others, and considered further argument. See ECF No. [57]. The 

Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, all opposing and supporting submissions, any relevant 

exhibits, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons 

set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part. 

I. BACKGROUND1

In the instant Motion, Plaintiff movesto preclude Defendant from introducing any evidence 

or testimony regarding how the shrink wrap roof cover allegedly prejudiced Defendant’s experts, 

John Carroll, P.E., and Michael Lukis, during their investigation of the insured property. Defendant 

1 The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts of this case. See ECF No. [71].

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2021 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

2

responds that it agrees with Plaintiff’s Motion as it relates to Mr. Carroll, but that it disagrees with 

the requested relief as it relates to Michael Lukis. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“In fairness to the parties and their ability to put on their case, a court should exclude 

evidence in limine only when it is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” United States v. 

Gonzalez, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “The movant has the burden of 

demonstrating that the evidence is inadmissible on any relevant ground.” Id. “Unless evidence 

meets this high standard, evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of 

foundation, relevancy, and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.” In re Seroquel 

Prods. Liab. Litig., Nos. 6:06-md-1769-Orl-22DAB, 6:07-cv-15733-Orl-22DAB, 2009 WL 

260989, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2009). Likewise, “[i]n light of the preliminary or preemptive 

nature of motions in limine, ‘any party may seek reconsideration at trial in light of the evidence 

actually presented and shall make contemporaneous objections when evidence is elicited.’” Holder 

v. Anderson, No. 3:16-cv-1307-J-39JBT, 2018 WL 4956757, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 30, 2018) 

(quoting Miller ex rel. Miller v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:01-cv-545-FtM-29DNF, 2004 WL 

4054843, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 22, 2004)); In re Seroquel Prod. Liab. Litig., 2009 WL 260989, at 

*1 (“The court will entertain objections on individual proffers as they arise at trial, even though 

the proffer falls within the scope of a denied motion in limine.” (citing United States v. Connelly, 

874 F.2d 412, 416 (7th Cir. 1989))).

“Evidence is admissible if relevant, and evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to prove 

or disprove a fact of consequence.” United States v. Patrick, 513 F. App’x 882, 886 (11th Cir. 

2013) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402); see also Fed. R. Evid. 401 advisory committee’s note to 

1972 proposed rules (“The standard of probability under the rule is more probable than it would 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2021 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

3

be without the evidence.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Relevant evidence may nonetheless 

be excluded under Rule 403 “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . 

unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or 

needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. “Rule 403 is an extraordinary 

remedy which the district court should invoke sparingly, and the balance should be struck in favor 

of admissibility.” Patrick, 513 F. App’x at 886 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United 

States v. Lopez, 649 F.3d 1222, 1247 (11th Cir. 2011)). Rule 403’s “major function . . . is limited 

to excluding matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in by the heels for the sake of 

its prejudicial effect.” United States v. Grant, 256 F.3d 1146, 1155 (11th Cir. 2001). 

III. DISCUSSION

In the instant Motion, Plaintiff seeks to exclude any evidence or testimony of any prejudice 

that the shrink wrap caused Defendant’s experts. At the outset, Defendant has agreed to the relief 

requested in the Motion as it relates to John Carroll and the Motion is granted as to this expert. 

Regarding Mr. Lukis, however, the Court concludes that it cannot categorically exclude this line 

of questioning without first having the benefit of hearing the testimony in context at trial. Indeed, 

as Plaintiff notes, she is unsure whether Defendant will even attempt to elicit testimony regarding 

any prejudice caused by the shrink wrap roof covering. Moreover, the Court can certainly envision 

a scenario where Plaintiff opens the door to testimony regarding Mr. Lukis’s inability to access 

the roof for inspection when developing his rebuttal opinions. This questioning could conceivably 

result in Defendant’s need to address Plaintiff’s installation of the shrink wrap and the potential 

“prejudice” caused by limited or no to access to the roofing system itself. The Court will not grant 

a motion in limine in a vacuum. Thus, until the nature of such testimony is known, the Motion is 

denied as premature. See In re Seroquel Prod. Liab. Litig., 2009 WL 260989, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2021 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

4

4, 2009) ("[E]videntiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, 

relevancy, and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context. It is the better practice to 

wait until trial to rule on objections when admissibility substantially depends upon what facts may 

be developed there." (citation omitted)).

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to 

Exclude any Reference to or Evidence or Testimony About any Prejudice Allegedly Caused by 

Roof Shrink Wrap, ECF No. [34], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 4, 2021.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2021 Page 4 of 4