1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 MELVIN WASHINGTON, Case No. 2:23-cv-01035-ART-DJA 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION 6 v. (ECF No. 36) 7 Division of Welfare and Supportive Services – Nevada, Cambridge, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 11 Plaintiff Melvin Washington sued the State of Nevada under the Americans 12 with Disabilities Act for alleged discrimination at the Cambridge office of Nevada’s 13 Division of Welfare. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff now brings a motion in limine to exclude 14 irrelevant or prejudicial evidence from trial. (ECF No. 36.) The State of Nevada 15 argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied as premature because it was filed 16 before any discovery was conducted. (ECF No. 39.) 17 The Court agrees with the State of Nevada. The issue of admissibility of 18 these records in trial is premature. At this point in the litigation, parties have 19 “not yet determined what evidence they intend to use at trial because the[y] have 20 yet to prepare and file a proposed joint pretrial order.” Kennedy v. Las Vegas 21 Sands Corp., No. 2:17-cv-880,

, at *4 (D. Nev. May 28, 2019); 22 Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Nos. 05-cv-1660-J (WMc), 06-cv-2671, 23

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2007) (denying plaintiff's motion in 24 limine as premature because defendant had not yet determined what evidence it 25 would introduce at trial). Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion without 26 prejudice but with leave to refile closer to trial. 27 Conclusion 28 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (ECF No. 36) is 1 || DENIED without prejudice. 2 3 DATED THIS 15th day of October 2025. 4 oan Ae Masset? 6 ANNER.TRAUM 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28