Hamilton v. Spurling et al, No. 3:2011cv00102 - Document 32 (S.D. Ohio 2011)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER denying 23 Motion in Limine WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 12/20/11. (pb1)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON DAVID HAMILTON, : Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:11cv00102 vs. : GORDON J. SPURLING, et al., : Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (pursuant to full consent of the parties) : Defendants. : DECISION AND ORDER The case is before the Court upon Plaintiff David Hamilton s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Certain Unsupported and Unsupportable Claims (Doc. #23), Defendants Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. #24), Plaintiff s Reply Memorandum (Doc. #30), and the record as a whole. Plaintiff seeks an Order excluding evidence of his prior alleged theft conviction in 1990. He argues that such evidence must be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 609(b) because it concerns an alleged conviction that is more than ten years old. Plaintiff also argues that evidence of the alleged transgression is not relevant to the matters at issue in this case. Plaintiff s arguments lack merit at the present time because evidence of a conviction that is older than ten years is sometimes admissible specifically, if the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 609(b). Neither that determination nor the relevancy of the alleged theft conviction can be made at this point in the case because discovery is ongoing and the factual record will doubtlessly evolve in the coming months. Accordingly, Plaintiff s Motion in Limine (Doc. #23) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. December 20, 2011 s/Sharon L. Ovington Sharon L. Ovington United States Magistrate Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.