City of Stuart, Florida v. 3M Company, et al.

Columbia, South Carolina personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff which sued Defendant on a product liability theory.





Plaintiff the City of Stuart ("Plaintiff,” "Stuart” or the "City) alleges that various Defendants manufactured and distributed aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF”) and/or fluorosurfactant additives for use in AFFF that contaminated the City's water supply with PFAS, including PFOS and PFOA.



Plaintiff filed a motion in limine to prevent Defendant from introducing certain evidence.



Although not specifically provided for in the Federal Rules of Evidence, motions in limine "ha[ve] evolved under the federal courts' inherent authority to manage trials.” United States v. Verges, Crim. No. 1:13-222, 2014 WL 559573, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 12, 2014). "The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow a court to rule on evidentiary issues in advance of trial in order to avoid delay, ensure an even-handed and expeditious trial, and focus the issues the jury will consider.” Id. "Questions of trial management are quintessentially the province of the district courts.” United States v. Smith, 452 F.3d 323, 332 (4th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. McBride, 676 F.3d 385, 403 (4th Cir. 2012) ("[A]ssessing [whether evidence is] relevan[t] is at the heart of the district court's trial management function.”). A district court therefore has "broad discretion” in deciding a motion in limine. Kauffman v. Park Place Hosp. Grp., 468 Fed.Appx. 220, 222 (4th Cir. 2012). Nonetheless, a motion in limine "should be granted only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART, DENIES IN PART, AND DENIES IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE as detailed herein Plaintiff's omnibus motions in limine no. 7



AND IT IS SO ORDERED.06/05/2023 372 ORDER This Order Relates to City of Stuart, Fl. v. 3M Co., et al.,Case No. 2:18-cv-3487-RMG. The Court is firmly persuaded that a continuance of this trial to afford the parties the opportunity to finalize a global resolution of the water district cases in the MDL is in the interest of all of the parties to this litigation and is in the interest of justice. The Court hereby grants the parties' joint motion to continue this case ( 3255 in case 2:18-mn-02873-RMG; (371) in case 2:18-cv-03487-RMG). AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 6/5/2023.Associated Cases: 2:18-mn-02873-RMG, 2:18-cv-03487-RMG(sshe, ) (Entered: 06/05/2023)

06/05/2023 373 NOTICE of Cancellation of Hearing: Jury selection and trial set for 6/5/2023 canceled per order 3256 in 2:18-mn-02873-RMG and 372 in 2:18-cv-03487-RMG. Associated Cases: 2:18-mn-02873-RMG, 2:18-cv-03487-RMG(cper, ) (Entered: 06/05/2023)