Dalzell et al v. Trailhead Lodge at Wildhorse Meadows, LLC et al

Filing 148

ORDER granting 139 Motion to Exclude New Exhibits by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 03/19/12.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 09-cv-02614-REB-KLM
WILLIAM I. DALZELL,
DEVON C. PURDY,
SAM PROPERTIES V, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
GREGORY HALLER, and
PAMELA HALLER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TRAILHEAD LODGE AT WILDHORSE MEADOWS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company, and
RP STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, LLC a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the Plaintiffs’ Motion To Exclude New Exhibits
[#139]1 filed March 2, 2011. The defendants filed a response [#140]. I grant the motion.
The plaintiffs argue that a third affidavit of Brent Pearson and an e-mail string
tendered to the court on February 17, 2011, should be excluded from evidence. Shortly
before the February 17, 2011, hearing, the plaintiffs obtained certain exhibits via a
subpoena (the Subpoenaed Exhibits). The defendants filed a motion [#131] to exclude
those documents from evidence, and the court granted the motion. Order [#147] filed
September 27, 2011. The plaintiffs’ Subpoenaed Exhibits have been excluded from
1

“[#139]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

evidence.
In their response [#140] to the present motion, the defendants say they obtained
the third affidavit of Brent Pearson and the e-mail string tendered to the court on
February 17, 2011, in an effort to respond to the plaintiffs’ Subpoenaed Exhibits. The
defendants argue that if the plaintiffs’ Subpoenaed Exhibits are excluded, then
consideration of the third affidavit of Brent Pearson and the e-mail string, tendered to
the court on February 17, 2011, is moot. Therefore, the court grants the plaintiffs’
motion to exclude, and the court will not consider the third affidavit of Brent Pearson and
the e-mail string.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Plaintiffs’ Motion To Exclude New Exhibits [#139] filed March 2,
2011, is GRANTED;
2. That the third affidavit of Brent Pearson and the e-mail string, which were
tendered to the court on February 17, 2011, are EXCLUDED from the exhibits filed by
the defendants in support of their opening brief [#125].
Dated March 19, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2