JAMIE LEE ANDREWS, as Surviving Spouse of MICAH LEE ANDREWS, Deceased, and JAMIE LEE ANDREWS, as Administrator of the Estate of MICAH LEE ANDREWS, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. AUTOLIV JAPAN, LTD., Defendant CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:14-cv-3432-SCJ United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division Signed January 20, 2021 Counsel Gregory Robert Feagle, Ballard & Feagle, LLP, Tedra L. Cannella, Rory Allen Weeks, Butler, Wooten & Peak, LLP, William L. Ballard, Penn Law, LLC, Atlanta, GA, James Edward Butler, Jr., Butler, Wooten, Cheeley & Peak, LLP, Columbus, GA, for Plaintiff Jamie Lee Andrews. Douglas G. Scribner, Jenny Ann Hergenrother, William Joseph Repko, III, Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant. Jones, Steve C., United States District Judge ORDER *1 This matter appears before the Court on Defendant Autoliv Japan, Inc.'s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Discovery Issues (Doc. No. [454]). A motion in limine is a pretrial motion by which a litigant seeks to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence before it is actually offered at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). A motion in limine is “an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and evenhanded management of the trial proceedings.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). “The district court has wide discretion in determining the relevance of evidence produced at trial.” Boyd v. Ala. Dep't. of Corr., 296 F. App'x 907, 908 (11th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Nowak, 370 F. App'x 39, 41 (11th Cir. 2010) (“District courts have broad discretion to admit probative evidence, but their discretion to exclude [relevant] evidence under Rule 403 is limited.”). It has been held that “[t]he rationale underlying pre-trial motions in limine does not apply in a bench trial, where it is presumed the judge will disregard inadmissible evidence and rely only on competent evidence .... [C]ourts are advised to deny motions in limine in non-jury cases ....[in that] [w]hen ruling on motions in limine, a court is forced to determine the admissibility of evidence without the benefit of the context of trial.” Singh v. Caribbean Airlines Ltd., No. 13-20639-CIV, 2014 WL 4101544, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2014) (citations omitted). “Nevertheless, the Court is not precluded from granting motions to exclude evidence in a bench trial, especially where resolution of the motion would streamline the trial process.” Salomon Constr. & Roofing Corp. v. James McHugh Constr. Co., No. 1:18-CV-21733-UU, 2019 WL 5256980, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 22, 2019). In the pending motion and as clarified by the briefing, Defendant Autoliv seeks to “exclude evidence and arguments regarding the discovery process, including evidence and arguments regarding documents that Plaintiff contends could or should have been produced by Autoliv.” Doc. No. [474], p. 2. Defendant Autoliv indicates that its motion is for purposes of streamlining the upcoming bench trial and on the ground that “[t]hese issues were addressed as part of Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.” Id. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's motion is vague and overbroad. Doc. No. [460], p. 1. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant's motion places the Court in an “impossible position of predicting what the evidence will be.” Id. As the Court has previously stated, it has been held that discovery issues “are irrelevant for purposes of trial.” Doc. No. [420], p. 47 (citing United States v. Cochran, No. 4:14-CR-22-01-HLM, 2014 WL 12695800, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 17, 2014)). However, in order to streamline the trial process, the Court must be able to fashion an order that is not vague or overbroad. To this regard, as there is some merit in both parties' arguments, the Court deems it proper to only grant Defendant's motion in part as to the discovery issues that have already been addressed in the context of the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. See Doc. No. [407]. Any additional objections to Plaintiff's evidence should be raised at bench trial whereby the Court will be able to determine admissibility of the evidence with the benefit of the context of the trial in accordance with the above-stated authority. CONCLUSION *2 Defendant Autoliv Japan, Inc.'s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Arguments Regarding Discovery Issues (Doc. No. [454]) is GRANTED IN PART and as follows: any evidence concerning discovery issues that have already been addressed in the context of the Court's ruling (Doc. No. [407]) on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is excluded. All additional defense objections to Plaintiff's evidence concerning discovery issues should be raised in the context of trial. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of January, 2021.