John (J.C.) Kell v. Freedom Arms Inc.; Kell Brothers Guns, Inc. and John D. Kell

               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA 
                           MISSOULA DIVISION 

JOHN (J.C.) KELL,                              CV 24-31-M-DWM 
                   Plaintiff, 
       VS.                                             ORDER 
FREEDOM ARMS INC., 
            Defendant/Third-Party 
            Plaintiff, 
       VS. 
KELL BROTHERS GUNS, INC. and 
JOHN D. KELL, 
            Third-Party Defendants. 

     On October 13, 2025, Plaintiff  John C. Kell and Defendant Freedom Arms, 
Inc. each filed thirteen motions in limine.  (See Docs. 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 
107, 109, 111, 113,  115, 117, 119, 121, 129, 125, 127, 131.)  While the Court will 
delay ruling on several of those motions until the opposing party has had the 
opportunity to respond, this order addresses those that need no response.  Two 
features of how trial will proceed here are worth mentioning.  First, consistent with 
this Court’s admonition during the pretrial conference, experts will be held to their 
disclosures.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2).  Second, because it is almost impossible 

to predict how evidence will be presented in the abstract, it is often most 
appropriate to leave a determination of the “exact contours” of admissibility until 
trial.  Raugust v. Abbey, 2022 WL 1468296, at *2 (D. Mont. May 10, 2022). 
Indeed, “/i/n limine ruling are not binding on the trial judge, and the judge may 
always change his mind during the course of trial.”  Ohler v.  United States, 529 
U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000). 
     Bearing these concepts in mind, IT IS ORDERED that: 
     (1)    Freedom Arms’ Motion in Limine No. 3  to limit treating doctors’ 
testimony to scope of their treatment (Doc. 99) is GRANTED.  The doctors that 
treated Plaintiff may testify only to his care, treatment, and prognosis.  See Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C); Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 
817, 820-21, 826 (9th Cir. 2011). 
     (2)    Freedom Arms’ Motion in Limine No. 5 regarding the Plaintiffs 
testimony (Doc.  103) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.  Expert 
testimony is generally limited to those opinions disclosed pursuant to either Rule 
26(a)(2)(B) or Rule 26(a)(2)(C).  However, opinion testimony by a lay witness 

may be admissible depending on its context, see Fed. R. Evid. 701, and that 
assessment will be made when an objection is made at trial. 
     (3)    Freedom Arms’ Motion in Limine No. 6 regarding the John D. Kell’s 
testimony (Doc.  105) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.  Expert

testimony is generally limited to those opinions disclosed pursuant to either Rule 
26(a)(2)(B) or Rule 26(a)(2)(C).  However, opinion testimony by a lay witness 

may be admissible depending on its context, see Fed. R. Evid. 701, and that 
assessment will be made when an objection is made at trial. 
     (4)    Freedom Arms’ Motion in Limine No. 7 regarding a “duty to recall” 
(Doc.  107) is DENIED subject to renewal at trial. 
     (5)    Freedom Arms’ Motion in Limine No. 8 regarding allegedly similar 
incidents (Doc. 109) is DENIED subject to renewal at trial. 
     (6)    Freedom Arms’ Motion in Limine No. 9 regarding redundant 
witnesses (Doc. 111) is DENIED subject to renewal at trial.  See Fed. R. Evid. 403, 
611. 
     (7)    Freedom Arms’ Motion in Limine No. 10 regarding hierarchy of 
design (Doc.  113) is DENIED subject to renewal at trial. 
     (8)    Freedom Arms’ Motion in Limine No.  11 regarding graphic images! 
(Doc.  115) is DENIED subject to renewal at trial. 
     (9)    Freedom Arms’ Motion in Limine No. 12 regarding Plaintiff's text 

messages (Doc.  117) is DENIED subject to renewal at trial.  See Fed. R. Evid. 801, 
803, 804. 

' This motion is mistakenly captioned as a second motion to “preclude all 
testimony regarding a hierarchy of design.”  (See Doc. 115.)

     (10)   Freedom Arms’ Omnibus Motion in Limine (Doc.  119) is GRANTED 
in PART and DENIED in PART as follows: 
          (i)    Requests for discovery: DENIED 
          (ii)    Expert reports: GRANTED 
          (iii)   Lay witness opinions on medical issues: GRANTED 
          (iv)   Lay witness opinions as to liability or defects: DENIED subject 
                to renewal at trial if adequate foundation shown, see Fed. R. 
                Evid. 701. 
          (v)    Lay witness opinions concerning economic evaluation: 
                DENIED subject to renewal at trial if adequate foundation 
                shown, see Fed. R. Evid. 701. 
          (vi)   Business information relating to Freedom Arms and/or its 
                parents and/or subsidiaries: GRANTED as  to the trial on the 
                merits, DENIED subject to renewal as it relates to punitive 
                damages if the case proceeds that far 
          (vii)   Recalls of  Freedom Arms products: DENIED subject to 
                renewal at trial 
          (viii)  References to Freedom Arms’ counsel: GRANTED 
          (ix)   References to statements of physicians: DENIED subject to 
                renewal at trial 
          (x)    Arguments regarding the relative wealth of the parties: 
                GRANTED 
          (xi)   Insurance coverage:  GRANTED 
          (xii)   Urging the jury to “send a message”: GRANTED as to the trial 
                on the merits, DENIED subject to renewal as it relates to 
                punitive damages if the case proceeds that far

           (xiii)  Settlement negotiations: GRANTED 
     (11)   Plaintiff's first set of motions in limine (Doc.  125) are GRANTED in 
PART and DENIED in PART as follows: 
            1.     Employment of attorneys: GRANTED 
           2.     Fact of filing of motions in limine: GRANTED 
           3.     Secondary gain or malingering: DENIED subject to renewal at 
                 trial 
           4.     Disparaging remarks about parties and counsel: GRANTED as 
                 to personal attacks that are not based in the relevant, admissible 
                 evidence presented in the case and DENIED subject to renewal 
                 at trial to the extent that the parties disagree about the definition 
                 of “disparaging” 
           5.     Lack of prior accidents with product:  DENIED subject to 
                 renewal at trial 
           6.     Argument that  Freedom Arms’ compliance with government or 
                 industry standard precludes liability or punitive damage: 
                 GRANTED 
           7.     Evidence of preexisting conditions or injuries: DENIED subject 
                 to renewal at trial 
           8.     Tax status: GRANTED 
           9.     Freedom Arms’ financial condition, financial affairs, net worth: 
                 GRANTED as to the trial on the merits, DENIED subject to 
                 renewal as it relates to punitive damages if the case proceeds 
                 that far 

      (12)   Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 10-12 regarding Freedom Arms’ 
assertion of subsequent design modification (Doc.  127) is DENIED subject to 
renewal at trial. 
     (13)   Plaintiffs Motion in Limine 13 regarding alleged misuse of the 
product (Doc.  131) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART as follows: 
            L.     Drinking and drug use: GRANTED 
           2.     Not reading or understanding the manual: DENIED subject to 
                 renewal at trial 
           Be     General gun safety guidelines: DENIED subject to renewal at 
                 trial 
           4.     User’s loading all five chambers and/or handling the model 
                 with a cartridge in line with the firing pin: DENIED subject to 
                 renewal at trial 
           5.     Subsequent design modifications or mis-assembly by a  third 
                 party: DENIED subject to renewal at trial 
The remaining motions in the case will be addressed after the opposing party has 
responded.               
     DATED thisLf day of October, 2025. 

                                   Donald    W.     Molloy, District Judge 
                                   United    States District Court 

                                      fe