# Draft Motion In Limine > Motion in limine to exclude specified categories of prejudicial evidence in a contract case, based on the pretrial record and case management order. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/draft-motion-in-limine` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/draft-motion-in-limine` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/draft-motion-in-limine/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/draft-motion-in-limine --- # Skill: Draft Motion in Limine ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Treat the case file, pretrial statement, deposition excerpts, exhibit lists, and case management order as the source set for identifying what evidence must be excluded or limited at trial. - Confirm whether the motion is for a single evidentiary category or several related categories that share one exclusion theory; group only where the governing rule and prejudice analysis are the same. - Capture any trial-setting deadlines, page limits, filing requirements, or meet-and-confer obligations that control motion timing and format. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Arguing exclusion only on generic relevance grounds instead of anchoring each request in the specific evidentiary rule that actually authorizes exclusion. - Failing to show why the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, or waste of time. - Omitting the opponent’s likely admissibility theory and leaving the motion vulnerable to predictable exceptions, limiting-use arguments, or Rule 403 pushback. - Splintering related evidence into multiple disconnected requests when a single motion ground would present a cleaner and more coherent evidentiary theory. - Ignoring trial-management requirements in the case management order or local rules, including filing timing and any required procedural prerequisites. - Drafting a motion that recites objections but does not ask for a concrete order excluding, limiting, or conditioning the evidence. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Motions in limine are pretrial requests for orders excluding or limiting evidence before it reaches the jury; they are governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and the trial court’s broad discretion. - Federal Rule of Evidence 401 defines relevance, but relevance alone is rarely enough to exclude; the motion should typically pair Rule 401 with Rule 403 or a more specific exclusion rule. - Federal Rule of Evidence 403 is the core balancing provision for unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, cumulative proof, and waste of time. - Federal Rule of Evidence 407 governs subsequent remedial measures when the evidence is offered to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect, or a need for warning. - Federal Rule of Evidence 408 governs compromise offers and settlement communications when offered to prove or disprove validity or amount of a disputed claim. - Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) bars other-acts evidence offered to prove propensity, while permitting only narrow non-propensity uses such as motive, intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake, subject to Rule 403. - Federal Rule of Evidence 411 bars evidence of liability insurance when offered to prove negligence or wrongful conduct, though limited alternative uses may exist. - Federal Rule of Evidence 407, 408, 404(b), 411, and 403 should be cited by name and subsection where relevant; do not rely on conclusory statements that evidence is “inadmissible” without naming the rule. - If the source materials identify a local rule or standing order for motions in limine, incorporate it; otherwise use the court’s ordinary motion practice conventions and the applicable federal evidentiary framework. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Evidence inventory: identify every likely category of prejudicial evidence the opposing party may try to use at trial, including documents, testimony, references during opening, and exhibits tied to that category. - Rule mapping: for each category, identify the controlling evidentiary rule, then state the admissibility theory the opponent is likely to invoke and why it fails or is narrower than claimed. - Prejudice analysis: explain concretely how the evidence would invite a forbidden inference, distract from the contract issues, create confusion, or require a mini-trial on collateral matters. - Limiting-use analysis: if an item may be admissible for one purpose but not another, ask for exclusion or, alternatively, for an advance instruction and sidebar requirement that prevents misuse. - Grouping analysis: combine items only when the same evidentiary rule, same relevance theory, and same prejudice rationale support a single request. - Relief design: request an order that excludes the evidence, bars mention in opening or voir dire, requires a sidebar before any attempt to introduce it, and reserves the ability to revisit the ruling if the trial context changes. - Authority discipline: state each legal proposition with the controlling rule, statute, or leading case authority rather than an unadorned conclusion. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Reconcile the motion with the case posture: the pretrial order, exhibit list, witness list, deposition designations, and any stipulated facts determine what evidence is actually in play. - If the evidence arises from a temporal sequence, distinguish conduct before the dispute, during the dispute, and after the disputed event, because admissibility often turns on timing. - If the evidence concerns multiple actors or business relationships, keep the motion focused on the plaintiff’s requested exclusions and avoid converting it into a merits brief on unrelated parties. - Where a document or testimony category has both admissible and inadmissible uses, separate the use for which exclusion is sought from any narrower use the court might preserve through limiting instructions. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Draft as a standalone motion in limine, not as a memo or outline. - Use a conventional motion structure: caption; introduction; brief statement of requested relief; applicable legal standard; separately numbered grounds for exclusion; conclusion and proposed order language if appropriate. - For each ground, identify: - the specific evidence or category of evidence, - the governing evidentiary rule or other controlling authority, - the opponent’s likely admissibility argument, - the prejudice/confusion analysis under the rule, - the precise relief requested. - Keep related evidence together under one ground when it shares the same exclusion theory; do not duplicate analysis across multiple grounds unnecessarily. - Where the source set provides dates, deadlines, or hearing settings, reference them in the filing and relief sections so the motion is procedurally anchored. - End with a concrete request for an order excluding the identified evidence or, alternatively, requiring advance approval outside the presence of the jury before any mention or use at trial.