United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE
BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Capital One
Services, LLC's Motion In Limine, ECF No.  (the
“Motion”). Plaintiff Lawanda Johnson filed a
response, ECF No.  (the “Response”), to which
Defendant filed a reply, ECF No.  (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.
Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts of
the case. See ECF No. , Order on Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment. In the Motion, Defendant moves to
preclude Plaintiff from introducing the following at the
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
f. Evidence of Capital One's calls to other individuals.
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).
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,