UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION

GREAT SOUTHLAND LIMITED,

Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:17-cv-719

vs. Judge Sarah D. Morrison

LANDASH CORPORATION, et al., Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER 

The Court’s January 28, 2022 Opinion and Order addressed various motions 

in limine of Defendants XPO Logistics, Inc. and XPO Global Forwarding, Inc. (ECF 

No. 257.) The Order pertinently held: (1) GSL cannot present evidence and 

testimony for an unplead negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim; (2) GSL

cannot present evidence and testimony for an unplead RICO conspiracy claim under 

18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); and (3) GSL cannot present evidence and testimony for interest 

damages from the Landash loan that it failed to properly substantiate. (ECF No. 

257.) Accordingly, the Order precluded evidence and testimony as to those three 

categories from being presented at trial. 

Feigning confusion, GSL now seeks “clarification” as to the effect of the 

Order. (ECF No. 261.) None is needed. The in limine Order clearly directs that it is 

“‘no more than a preliminary, or advisory, opinion.” Id. at PageID 4815 (quoting 

United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, the Court 

will “‘entertain objections on individual proffers of evidence as they arise at trial, 

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 265 Filed: 06/02/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 4905
2

even though the proffered evidence falls within the scope of a . . . motion in limine.’”

Id. (quoting United States v. Kistner, No. 2:11-cr-00283, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

2129, at *4-5 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2013) (Frost, J.)).

Alternatively, GSL seeks certification of the Order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) 

to permit interlocutory appeal. (ECF No. 261.) Certification is reserved for 

exceptional cases and requires GSL to prove that the Order raises a controlling 

issue of law, that the substantial grounds for difference of opinion exist about the 

correctness of the Order, and that an interlocutory appeal would materially advance 

termination of the litigation. Alexander v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 663 F. 

Supp. 2d 627, 639 (E.D. Tenn. 2009) (the “party seeking an interlocutory appeal has 

the burden of showing exceptional circumstances exist warranting an interlocutory 

appeal”); see also In re City of Memphis, 293 F.3d 345, 350 (6th Cir. 2002) (setting 

fourth the three factors). “If any of these factors is absent, the certification cannot 

issue.” Emples. Ret. Sys. v. Jones, No. 2:20-cv-4813, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219201, 

at *4 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 12, 2021) (Marbley, C.J.).

No controlling question is present. Decisions about in limine matters are 

discretionary. Oster v. Huntington Bancshares Inc., No. 2:15-cv-2746, 2017 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 118997, at *8 (S.D. Ohio July 28, 2017) (Marbley, J.). The Sixth Circuit 

directs that “such discretionary decisions on the admissibility of evidence are not 

‘controlling’ for purposes of § 1292(b).” Rover Pipeline LLC v. 5.9754 Acres of Land, 

No. 3:17CV225, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56521, at *26 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 2, 2019)

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 265 Filed: 06/02/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 4906
3

(citing In re City of Memphis, 293 F.3d at 351). GSL fails to sustain its burden so its 

request for § 1292(b) certification is DENIED. (ECF No. 261.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Sarah D. Morrison

SARAH D. MORRISON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 265 Filed: 06/02/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 4907