Adams Jr. et al v. Teck Cominco Alaska Inc. et al
Order on Motion in Limine
MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ENOCH ADAMS JR., et al.
THE HONORABLE JOHN W. SEDWICK
TECK COMINCO ALASKA INC.
CASE NO. 3:04-cv-00049-JWS
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
Date: March 10, 2008
At docket 211, plaintiffs moved to exclude the testimony of eleven of the forty-five
witnesses listed on defendant Teck Cominco's final witness list for the liability phase of
the trial at docket 197. The motion is premised on the assertion that Teck failed to
comply with the pre-trial order at docket 177. The motion at docket 211 has been fully
The pre-trial order required each party to file a final witness list and expressly
stated: "As to each witness so listed (even though the witness may have been
deposed), counsel will disclose the testimony expected to be elicited from that witness
at trial. The disclosure will be specific and not general, the purpose being to avoid
surprise and delay at trial and to give opposing counsel an adequate basis for
developing cross-examination." (Doc. 177 at p. 3) This requirement is one this court
has routinely used in civil cases for more than fifteen years, and it is also routinely used
by the other judges in this district. It is a requirement that is not only easy to
understand, but one with which lawyers who practice in this court should be very
familiar. The requirement advances the interests recognized in Rule 1 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. It is fundamental to the management of a busy docket. The
instant case is expected to require ten weeks or more of trial time. This substantial
commitment of judicial resources strains the ability of this court to provide all the judicial
services expected of it. Allowing a party to ignore the requirements of the pre-trial order
risks prolonging an already lengthy trial.
After examining the descriptions of testimony given by Teck for the eleven
witnesses in question, the court concludes that testimony from ten of the witnesses–
Richard Brown; Peter M. Chapman, Ph.D.; Greg Horner; Kevin Lackey; Jackie
Lundberg; Mike Schierman; Mike Stanoway; William Stubblefield, Ph.D.; Jason
Weakley; and Kathleen Willman–will be excluded in its entirety for failure to comply with
the order at docket 177. The eleventh challenged witness is expert witness Joyce Tsuji,
an expert retained by Teck. At docket 197, Teck described her trial testimony as
follows: "A Retained Expert. Will testify consistent with her report and supplemental
report, and work performed by Exponent for Red Dog Mine." Plaintiffs seek to exclude
only that portion of her testimony which relates to "work performed by Exponent for Red
Dog Mine." Teck's description of Ms. Tsuji's expert testimony is, as plaintiffs implicitly
recognize, sufficient. The court agrees with plaintiffs that the description of "work
performed by Exponent" is insufficient to comply with the pre-trial order. Therefore, that
portion of her testimony will be excluded. She will, of course, be allowed to offer
testimony consistent with her report and supplemental report.
The motion at docket 211 is GRANTED as set forth above.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?