Alexander v. Harris et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE
RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION
MDL Docket No. 1:22-md-03035-STA-jay
ALL CASES
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE AGAINST DEFENDANT
SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND DENYING SYMETRA’S
CROSS-MOTION IN LIMINE AGAINST PLAINTIFFS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion in limine against Defendant Symetra Life Insurance
Company (ECF No. 977) and Defendant’s response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. (ECF No.
1029.) Defendant’s response contains a cross-motion in limine. The Court finds that it can rule on
Defendant’s cross-motion without the benefit of a response from Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to exclude any evidence that Symetra did not possess during its
business relationship with AMEC prior to Dr. Jerome Harris’s retirement in order to justify its
belief that Dr. Harris was the authorized trustee of the retirement plan. Plaintiffs claim that any
such evidence is irrelevant and otherwise inadmissible. Symetra asks the Court to bar Plaintiffs
from disputing that Dr. Harris was the sole person authorized by AMEC to direct Symetra
regarding its annuity contracts.
“A ruling on a motion in limine is no more than a preliminary, or advisory, opinion that
falls entirely within the discretion of the district court.” Easley v. Haywood, 2015 WL 6179522, at
*1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2015) (quoting United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994)).
Courts may properly deny or defer ruling on motions in limine when “issues such as foundation,
relevance, and potential prejudice require the context of the trial for resolution.” Id. (citation
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 969 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 3
PageID <pageID>

2
omitted). See also Holley v. BBS/Mendoza, 2024 WL 3856932, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 19, 2024)
(“If a court is unable to determine whether certain evidence is clearly inadmissible, it should defer
ruling until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy, and potential prejudice can be evaluated
in proper context.”) “To obtain the exclusion of evidence under such a motion, a party must prove
that the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” United States v. Sawyer, 2016
WL 11480123, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 26, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL
6583730 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2016) (citations omitted). “Denial of a motion in limine ‘merely
means that without the context of trial, the court is unable to determine whether the evidence in
question should be excluded.’” Id. (citation omitted).
In the present case, as pointed out by Symetra, Plaintiffs have not identified any specific
evidence it seeks to exclude. The Court is not inclined to exclude a general category of evidence.
See Smith v. City of Troy, 2016 WL 1436380, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2016) (“Even
acknowledging the somewhat advisory nature of liminal orders, this Court is not prepared to find
such a broad exclusion appropriate here.”); see also Morrison v. Stephenson, 2008 WL 343176, at
*1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 5, 2008) (“Courts ... are generally reluctant to grant broad exclusions of
evidence in limine because a court is almost always better situated during the actual trial to assess
the value and utility of evidence.”). Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.
To the extent that Symetra is correct that the evidence in the record shows that Dr. Harris
was the sole person authorized by AMEC to direct Symetra regarding its annuity contracts, this is
an argument more appropriate for summary judgment. The Court will not require the parties to
brief this issue in a motion in limine when there is a more appropriate avenue for determining
undisputed issues of fact. If the issue of Dr. Harris’ authority remains after the Court has ruled on
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 969 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 3
PageID <pageID>

3
the motions for summary judgment, then Symetra may make its objections at trial. Accordingly,
Symetra’s motion is also DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. Thomas Anderson
United States District Judge
Dated: November 3, 2025
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 969 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 3
PageID <pageID>