rere led in Fist ll Dist Court eee ‘9M1GI2013 3:14:10 PM Dorota County, Mi ‘STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FAMILY COURT DIVISION In Re the Marriage of: Court File No.: 19AV-FA-11-1273 Judicial Officer: David L. Knutson Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, Petitioner, RESPONDENT'S AMENDED and MOTIONS IN LIMINE David Vitor Rucki, Respondent, TO: Petitioner above named, Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, and her attorney, Michelle L, MacDonald, MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, 1069 South Robert Street, West St Paul, Minnesota 55118: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on the 11th day of September, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. or 4&5 soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, before the Honorable David L. Knutson, Judge of District Court, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, 1860 Highway 55, Hastings, Minnesota, Respondent herein will move the Court an Order as follows: 4. PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA RULES OF EVIDENCE 402 and 802, PRECLUDING PETITIONER FROM INTRODUCING INTO EVIDENCE THE POLICE REPORT OF JULY 27, 2013, ELKO NEW MARKET POLICE DEPARTEMENT, Petitioner has listed a police report dated July 27, 2013 from the Elko New Market Police Department as a trial exhibit in this matter. The Pre-Trial Order in this matter limits the issues to be tried as custody, parenting time and child support. The police report from the Elko New Market Police Department should be excluded from evidence in this matter as itis irrelevant pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Evidence 402 and has no bearing on the issues at hand. Further, the police report is inadmissible hearsay, pursuant to Rules 801AWAVFAAI-I273 and 802 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence. The police report contains statements outside of trial which presumably are being offered to show the truth of the matter contained in the report. Such hearsay evidence is not admissible pursuant to the Hearsay Rule of Minnesota Rule of Evidence 802 and should be excluded. In addition, Petitioner has never provided Respondent with a copy of this police report, Respondent served Requests for Production of Documents on Petitioner on June 29, 2012, which included a request for copies of all exhibits which Petitioner intended to Offer at trial. Since Petitioner never provided a copy of this document in response to those Requests, Respondent asks that Petitioner not be allowed to introduce it at trial, 2, PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA RULES OF EVIDENCE 801 AND 802, PRECLUDING PETITIONER FROM INTRODUCING THE FOX 9 NEWS COMPETE VIDEO TAPE OF ENTIRE INTERVIEW WITH SAMANTHA RUCKI AND GIANNA RUCK! FOR TELEVISION BROADCAST, This videotape interview should be excluded from evidence in this matter as it is inadmissible hearsay, pursuant to Rules 801 and 802 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence. The video tape purportedly contains statements of Gianna Rucki and Samantha Rucki which were made outside of trial which presumably are being offered to show the truth of the matter contained in the video tape interviews. Such hearsay evidence is not admissible Pursuant to the Hearsay Rule of Minnesota Rule of Evidence 802 and should be excluded. In addition, Petitioner has never provided Respondent with a copy of these videotape interviews. Respondent served Requests for Production of Documents on Petitioner on June 29, 2012, which included a request for copies of all exhibits which Petitioner intended to offer at trial. (See Respondent's Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner (Set II!) attached hereto as Exhibit A) Since Petitioner never 2tOAVEA1-4273 provided a copy of this videotape in response to those Requests, Respondent asks that Petitioner not be allowed to introduce it at trial. 3. __ PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA RULE OF EVIDENCE 802, PRECLUDING PETITIONER FROM OFFERING INTO THE EVIDENCE THE IN-CHAMBERS STATEMENTS OF RUCKI CHILDREN: NICO RUCKI, SAMANTHA RUCKI, GIANNA RUCKI, NIA RUCKI AND GINO RUCKI. ‘These in-chamber statements of the Rucki children should be excluded from evidence in this matter as inadmissible hearsay, pursuant to Rules 801 and 802 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence. The statements were not “testimony” and neither party had the opportunity to cross examine the children on their statements. The statements were made outside of trial and are presumably being offered to shaw the truth of the matter contained in the statements, Such hearsay evidence is not admissible pursuant to the Hearsay Rule of Minnesota Rule of Evidence 802 and should be excluded. In addition, the Court issued an Order on March 29, 2013 sealing the transcript of those statements. (See Order and Memorandum altached hereto as Exhibit B and Incorporated by reference). They should not be allowed as evidence at trial, 4, __ PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA RULE OF EVIDENCE 402, PRECLUDING PETITIONER FROM OFFERING THE PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND APPENDIX, DATED JULY 11, 2013, APPEALS COURT FILE A13-0859 Minnesota Rules of Evidence 401 and 402 require that evidence be excluded from trialifit is not relevant. “Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Minn. R. Evid, 401 (2012). The Pre-Trial Order in this matter limits the issues to be tried as custody, parenting