Recent rulings in the copyright litigation between Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke and Marvin Gaye's heirs illustrate how parties can effectively use motions in limine to shape the evidence to their advantage even before trial begins.

Williams and Thicke sued in the US District Court for the Central District of California for a declaratory judgment that the hit song "Blurred Lines" does not infringe Gaye's copyrighted work "Got to Give It Up." Gaye's heirs counterclaimed for copyright infringement.

The district court denied summary judgment and the parties have been preparing for trial, which is scheduled to start later this month. As part of that preparation, the parties made 17 motions in limine, 16 of which sought the exclusion of evidence.

Although motions in limine can be used to obtain an advance ruling on whether certain evidence should be admitted at trial, parties typically use motions in limine to ask the court to exclude specified evidence from trial because it is inadmissible under one or more of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). By moving to exclude the evidence before trial (as opposed to simply objecting to the evidence at trial), counsel may help prevent an opponent from tainting the jury with inadmissible evidence.

Here, by minute order entered January 26, 2015, the district court granted, in whole or in part, 12 of the motions to exclude evidence. Among other things, the court prohibited:

Of particular interest, the court initially ruled that Gaye's heirs could not offer into evidence sound recordings of Gaye's songs. Two days later, however, the court issued an in-chambers order "clarifying and modifying its earlier position."

Although the court adhered to its earlier conclusion that Gaye's copyright protects his written composition but not the sound recordings of that composition, the court ruled that the jury could hear portions of the recordings of the copyrighted materials, so long as those portions contained no more non-copyrighted material than necessary to avoid unfairly prejudicing the jury in violation of FRE 403.

Additionally, the court held that it would exclude as irrelevant under FRE 401 evidence that the plaintiffs copied non-copyrighted material from the recordings. The court then granted the defendants permission to prepare modified recordings and limiting instructions for the court's consideration under FRE 402 and 403.

As this celebrity case proves, motions in limine are critical. Practical Law has resources that can assist attorneys in using motions in limine to limit the jury's exposure to inadmissible and damaging evidence, including:

For more resources to assist counsel with trial preparation generally, see Trial Toolkit (Federal).