Name of Assigned Judge Amy J. St. Eve Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' motion in limine  to exclude certain statements at trial related to statements in Dr. Freeman's expert reports.
O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude certain statements at trial related to statements Dr. Michael Freeman, Defendants' expert, made in his initial and rebuttal expert reports. For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' motion.
In this case, Plaintiffs Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company and Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege that Defendant Melvin D'Souza, D.C., a chiropractic physician and the sole shareholder of Defendant St. Anthony's Spine & Joint Institute, P.C. (collectively, "Defendants"), defrauded Plaintiffs by submitting false and misleading medical reports, records, and billing statements for chiropractic and diagnostic services. (R. 230, Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) Defendants filed a counterclaim against Plaintiffs alleging that Plaintiffs brought this suit against Defendants in bad faith in contravention of 720 ILCS § 5/46-5(b). The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment with respect to Defendants' counterclaim.
On June 9, 2011, pursuant to the Court's scheduling order (R. 154), Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the expert testimony in Dr. Freeman's initial expert report. (R. 155.) The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion on August 31, 2009. (R. 179.) On January 21, 2009, Dr. Freeman issued a rebuttal report addressing allegations made by Plaintiffs' chiropractic expert, Dr. Tari Reinke. Plaintiffs did not move to exclude Dr. Freeman's rebuttal report.
"Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent authority to manage the course of trials." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n. 4, 105 S. Ct. 460, 83 L. Ed.2d 443 (1984). In limine rulings avoid delay and allow the parties the opportunity to prepare themselves and witnesses for the introduction or exclusion of the applicable evidence. See Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562, 566 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Connelly, 874 F.2d 412, 416 (7th Cir. 1989). Trial courts have broad discretion in ruling on evidentiary issues before trial. See United States v. Chambers, 642 F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir. 2011); Cefalu v. Village of Elk Grove, 211 F.3d 416, 426 (7th Cir. 2000). Regardless of the Court's initial ruling on a motion in limine, the Court may adjust its ruling during the course of trial. See Farfaras v. Citizens Bank & Trust of Chicago, 433 F.3d 558, 565 (7th Cir. 2006). The Court will grant a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose. See Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 ...