UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ALFONSO SALINAS, SR., )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No. 2:13-CV-370-PRC

)

SPEEDWAY, L.L.C., )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine [DE 16] filed with the

Court on March 10, 2015; on Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine

filed with the Court on March 30, 2015; and on Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Response to

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine filed with the Court on March 31, 2015.

In determination of these issues the Court FINDS, ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and

DECREES:

Federal Rule of Evidence 104 provides, in part: “Preliminary questions concerning . . .

admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the Court.” Motions in Limine to exclude evidence

prior to trial are subject to a rigorous standard of review. Courts may bar evidence in limine “only

when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Dartey v. Ford Motor Co., 104 F.

Supp. 2d 1017, 1020 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (quoting Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., 831 F. Supp.

1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993)). If evidence does not meet this standard, “the evidentiary rulings should

be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevance and potential prejudice may be

resolved in proper context.” Id. (quoting Hawthorne, 831 F. Supp. at 1400).

A court’s rulings in limine are preliminary in nature and subject to change. In this Order the

Court is not making final determination on the admissibility of any evidence. The Court reserves the
right to change these rulings during the trial should the Court find that the evidence or arguments

at trial justify such change.

1. Evidence of or argument about who pays the verdict if the jury awards damages.

RULING: The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard.

2. Argument that Plaintiff Salinas failed to mitigate his damages unless the evidence

shows otherwise.

RULING: The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard.

3. Argument that Plaintiff Salinas’ medical expenses and worker’s compensation

payments were paid by his employer without also arguing or presenting by evidence

that worker’s compensation payments must be reimbursed.

RULING: The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard.

4. Evidence of or argument about prior unrelated medical conditions of, and unrelated

medications taken by, Plaintiff Salinas or any other trial witness.

RULING: The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard.

5. Evidence of or argument about other accidents, unrelated injuries, or other lawsuits

suffered by, or filed by, Plaintiff Salinas.

RULING: The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard.

2
6. Evidence of or argument about physician Dr. Ralph W. Richter, Jr. stating that 

Plaintiff Salinas has a zero impairment rating for worker’s compensation purposes.

RULING: The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is DENIED in this regard. 

7. Evidence of or argument that no other invitee has been injured at the area on the

premises where Plaintiff Salinas fell.

RULING: The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is DENIED in this regard. 

8. Argument that litigation is like trying to win a lottery or other similar argument or 

comments.

RULING: The Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine [DE 16] is GRANTED in part and DENIED

in part. 

SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2015.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

cc: All counsel of record 

3