Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johnson v. Capital One Services, LLC

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

October 15, 2019

LAWANDA JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE

          BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Capital One Services, LLC's Motion In Limine, ECF No. [26] (the “Motion”). Plaintiff Lawanda Johnson filed a response, ECF No. [38] (the “Response”), to which Defendant filed a reply, ECF No. [42] (the “Reply”). The Court has carefully considered the Motion, all opposing and supporting submissions, the record in this case and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts of the case. See ECF No. [49], Order on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. In the Motion, Defendant moves to preclude Plaintiff from introducing the following at the upcoming trial:

a. Plaintiff's call log;
b. Expert testimony of Capital One using an ATDS;
c. Testimony of clicks and pauses as indicia of an ATDS;
d. Other litigation or settlements involving Capital One;
e. Evidence relating to Capital One's alleged use of an ATDS; and
f. Evidence of Capital One's calls to other individuals.

         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). “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 Products Liab. Litig., 2009 WL 260989, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2009).

         Evidence is admissible if relevant, and evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to prove or disprove a fact of consequence. Fed.R.Evid. 401, 402; United States v. Patrick, 513 Fed.Appx. 882, 886 (11th Cir. 2013). A district court may exclude relevant evidence 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 of 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 Fed.Appx. at 886 (citing United States v. Lopez, 649 F.3d 1222, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.