Filter by: FEDERAL DISTRICT
Filter by Price
Filter by: FILE TYPE
Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT REGARDING TRAFFIC CITATIONS, DRIVING RECORDS
AND PRIOR UNRELATED TRAFFIC OFFENSES/CHARGES
Motion for Disclosure of Information Sufficient to Establish the Trustworthiness of Critical Government Evidence
Federal criminal motion form the defense for disclosure of government information to establish sufficiency of prosecution evidence.
Defendant’s Response to Government’s Motion to Admit Evidence of Defendant’s UCC Filings for 2011 and 2012
Defense response to Gvernment’s Motion to Admit specific evidence of a defendant’s UCC filings. Companion to the Motion to Admit Defendant’s UCC filings for 2011 and 2012, also on Lawyers Help Lawyers.
Government’s Motion to Admit Evidence of Defendant’s UCC Filings in 2011 and 2012
Federal prosecutor’s motion to admit specific acts of a criminal defendant. US District Court for the Central District of California.
Defendant’s Motion In Limine to Preclude Evidence of Uncharged Tax Years
Motion by a criminal defendant in the US District Court for the Western District of California to preclude the inclusion of specific evidence. In this case, to exclude evidence of tax filings for ax years not included in the Government’s charges.
Defendant’s Initial Rule 26 Disclosures – Personal Injury
A party must make its initial disclosures based on the information then reasonably available to it. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. Appendix A to these disclosures identifies those individuals who may have discoverable information relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings.
Motion to Preclude Client from Introducing Evidence or Testimony – Plaintiff was not Informed of Her Right to Undergo Testing
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ARGUING, OR INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY, THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INFORMED OF HER RIGHT ON AUGUST 1, 2012, TO UNDERGO TESTING TO DEFINITIVELY RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF INFECTION
Response to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude any Evidence of Medical Expense Payments from any Collateral Source
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL EXPENSE PAYMENTS FROM ANY COLLATERAL SOURCE
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine – Medical Malpractice
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
A. Unopposed Motion in Limine to Preclude any Evidence or Argument Regarding the Alleged Consequences of a Damages Award in This Lawsuit or Any Other Medical Malpractice Lawsuit
B. Unopposed Motion in Limine to Preclude Any Arguments or Inferences That Plaintiff is Bringing Her Claims Simply to Win the Lottery or Otherwise Roll the Dice on Litigation
E. Motion in Limine to Preclude Any Evidence, Testimony, Argument, or Suggestion of Any Alleged Comparative Fault of Plaintiff or Failure to Mitigate Damages by Plaintiff.
A. Motion in Limine to preclude any expert witness from offering opinions or testimony outside the scope of their previously disclosed opinions.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Introduce Summaries into Evidence at Trial
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO INTRODUCE SUMMARIES INTO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
First Supplamental Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defense
DEFENDANT’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF NONPARTY AT FAULT AND TO PRECLUDE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE CONCERNING ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OR FAULT
Motion to Suppress Evidence of Wire Communications
Motion to Suppress Evidence of Wire Communications
Motion to Suppress Evidence (defective warrant)
Notice of Motion and Motion to Supress Evidence (defective warrant)
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence
Motion for Preliminary Ruling on Admissibility of Victim’s Past
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM’S VIOLENT CHARACTER