Estate of Robert W. Petersen, by and through Robert T. Petersen as Personal...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION ESTATE OF ROBERT W.

PETERSEN, by and through Robert T. CV 22-11-BLG-SPW Petersen as Personal Representative; ESTATE OF MARY ANN SIMONS, by and through Dean Simons as ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ Personal Representative; and ESTATE MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. OF CHARLOTTE ELAINE 17-19 GUILFORD, by and through Charles Guilford as Personal Representative, Plaintiffs, VS. KOELSCH SENIOR COMMUNITIES, LLC and BILLINGS PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a CANYON CREEK, Defendants.

Before the Court are Defendants’ Motions in Limine Nos. 17-19. (Doc. 194).

These Motions form part of an extensive compilation of Defendants’ 28 filings alleging various instances of Plaintiffs’ pretrial misconduct and evidentiary violations! “In a remarkable display of a what a cynic might view as ‘overlitigation,’” the Court has nonetheless carefully considered each Motion to ' During the undersigned’s combined 28 years on the bench, 28 motions in limine certainly constitute a record. date. See Stevenson v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins., No. CV 24-109-M, 2025 WL 2336443, at *6 (D. Mont. Aug. 13, 2025).

However, some “evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevance and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.” United States v. Mixon, No. CR-14-00631-001, 2015 WL 13849026, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 14, 2015) (quoting Hawthorne Partners v. AT & T Techs., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1401 (N.D. II. 1993)).

Accordingly, the Court’s rulings on Motions in Limine Nos. 17-19 must await further contextual development at trial and for this reason, the Motions are DENIED with leave to renew specific objections at trial.

DATED this ez day of December, 2025.

Li f?

SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge