Holley v. BBS/Mendoza, LLC d/b/a McDonald's, 2:23-cv-00052

Plaintiff Pamela Holley filed a motion in limine to prevent Defendant BBS/Mendoza, LLC (doing business as McDonald's) from using any documents at trial that were not produced during discovery.
The motion sought a broad exclusion order, not identifying specific documents, only referencing the possibility of new, undisclosed evidence.
Defendant admitted late disclosure of certain text messages but argued this was harmless and justified, as Plaintiff was a party to those messages and they had been previously disclosed in motion practice.
The case is being heard in federal court, which applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, not Ohio state rules.
The Court evaluated whether Defendant's failure to produce the text messages warranted exclusion of those documents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclude all unproduced discovery docs	All documents not disclosed in discovery should be barred	Late disclosure was harmless/substantially justified	Denied—no blanket exclusion
Application of state vs. federal rules	Cited Ohio law and cases on exclusion of evidence	Federal rules apply in federal court	Federal rules govern, not state
Specific exclusion of late text messages	Vaguely referenced exclusion, did not specify documents	Text messages were disclosed, Plaintiff was participant	Harmless; exclusion unwarranted
Granting broad evidentiary exclusions	Sought broad, general exclusion order	Such broad motions not favored, specifics are needed	General motion denied

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (motions in limine are preliminary rulings within district court discretion)
United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999 (motions in limine are advisory and may be reconsidered in trial)
Legg v. Chopra, 286 F.3d 286 (federal rather than state evidentiary rules apply in federal court)
Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708 (broad evidentiary exclusions by motion in limine are disfavored)