Paramount Farms, Inc. vs. Ventilex B.V.

Filing 100

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE 77 - 81 signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on October 15, 2010. (Lira, I)

Paramount Farms, Inc. vs. Ventilex B.V.

Doc. 100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PARAMOUNT FARMS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. VENTILEX, B.V., Defendant. /

CASE NO. CV F 08-1027 LJO SKO ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Docs. 77-81.)

This Court conducted an October 15, 2010 hearing on plaintiff Paramount Farms, Inc.'s ("Paramount's") motions in limine. Paramount appeared by counsel Chris Van Gundy and Adam Zaffos. Defendant Ventilex B.V. ("Ventilex BV") appeared by counsel Edward Gilbert. This Court issues the following rulings on Paramount's motions in limine. PARAMOUNT'S MIL1 NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT THE ORGALIME TERMS LIMIT VENTILEX BV'S LIABILITY UNDER THE APPROVAL GUARANTEE AND PARAMOUNT'S MIL NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT THE ORGALIME TERMS' LIMITATIONS PERIOD APPLY This Court DENIES the motions in limine as seeking rulings broader than those made in the summary judgment decision and to preclude potentially relevant evidence.

A s used in the headings, "MIL" refers to motion in limine.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Dated: 66h44d PARAMOUNT'S MIL NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE HENK DIJKMAN'S "UNDERSTANDING" THAT VENTILEX BV'S LIABILITY UNDER THE APPROVAL GUARANTEE IS LIMITED TO THE ORGALIME TERMS This Court DENIES without prejudice the motion in limine in that Mr. Dijkman's testimony as to technical terms or terms of art may be permitted with a proper foundation. PARAMOUNT'S MIL NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE TERRY KORN'S REBUTTAL TESTIMONY REGARDING EDWARD WHITE This Court DENIES without prejudice the motion in limine pending sufficient foundation for Mr. Korn's opinions. PARAMOUNT'S MIL NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE RONALD VANE TESTIMONY NOT BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE This Court DENIES without prejudice the motion in limine in that the motion's scope is too vague to frame a ruling of admissible and inadmissible testimony. IT IS SO ORDERED. October 15, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE