Murphy v. Schaible, Russo & Company, C.P.A.'s, L.L.P. et al

Filing 306

ORDER. Defendants' Joint Motion in Limine (ECF No. #268 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (ECF No. #266 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as set forth herein. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 5/10/2022.(trvo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 19-cv-2808-WJM-NYW
DIANNA CHRISTINE MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCHAIBLE, RUSSO & COMPANY, C.P.A.’S, L.L.P., and
THOMAS SCHAIBLE,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN
LIMINE AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE
Plaintiff Dianna Christine Murphy sues her brother-in-law, Thomas Schaible, and
Schaible, Russo & Company, C.P.A.’s L.L.P. (“SRC”) (jointly, “Defendants”) for breach
of fiduciary duty. Familiarity with the extensive procedural history and the parties’
respective versions of events, recounted elsewhere (e.g., ECF Nos. 208, 232), is
presumed.
Before the Court is Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine (“Defendants’ Motion”),
filed April 15, 2022. (ECF No. 268.) Plaintiff responded on April 25, 2022. (ECF No.
275.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (“Plaintiff’s Motion”), filed April
15, 2022. (ECF No. 266.) Defendants responded April 25, 2022. (ECF No. 277.)
For the reasons explained below, Defendants’ Motion is denied, and Plaintiff’s
Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS
“The admission or exclusion of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the
trial court . . . .” Robinson v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 16 F.3d 1083, 1086 (10th Cir. 1994);
see also United States v. Golden, 671 F.2d 369, 371 (10th Cir. 1982) (“Trial judges
have discretion to decide whether an adequate foundation has been laid for the
admission of evidence.”).
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, “[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any
tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Relevant evidence is
generally admissible and should only be excluded “if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the
jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R.
Evid. 403. “Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402.
II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE (ECF No. 268)
Defendants argue that the Court should preclude evidence and argument on the
following topics: (1) whether Plaintiff’s damages in this case include the money that
Michael Schaible transferred from assets in U.S. accounts to Mexico; (2) Plaintiff’s
attorneys’ fees and costs; and (3) exemplary damages. (ECF No. 268.)
A.

Evidence Regarding Plaintiff’s Damages
Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from presenting any evidence or argument

that her damages in this case include the assets that Michael Schaible transferred from
the couple’s U.S. accounts to Mexico. (ECF No. 268 at 4.) They contend that Plaintiff

2

filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in the Larimer County, Colorado District Court
on June 2, 2017 and that on February 24, 2019, the Larimer County District Court
issued the “Permanent Orders nunc pro tunc to January 31, 2019” (the “Permanent
Orders”). (Id.) Defendants represent that, among other things, the Larimer County
District Court allocated the investment accounts in the U.S. to Plaintiff as her sole and
separate property and allocated the accounts in Mexico to Michael Schaible as his sole
and separate property. (Id. at 5.) According to Defendants,
Plaintiff’s contention that her damages for Defendants’
alleged breach of fiduciary duty include “some or all of the
$2.5 million transferred in March 2017 and some or all of the
value of the Voya annuity” would require the jury to
impermissibly speculate. The Permanent Orders confirm
that the money Michael Schaible transferred to accounts in
Mexico was an asset of the marital estate that the [Larimer
County] District Court included in its allocation. The only
avenue for the jury to find that Defendants’ alleged breach of
fiduciary duty resulted in Plaintiff’s failure to receive some or
all of the money Michael transferred to the accounts in
Mexico would be for the jury to speculate that the [Larimer
County] District Court would have allocated the investment
accounts to her even if Michael had not transferred the $2.5
million and $749,752.94 Voya proceeds to Mexico. This
theory is speculative per se and prohibited under Colorado
law.
(Id. at 6.) Defendants further argue that Plaintiff did not endorse an expert to testify
regarding how Michael Schaible’s transfer of marital assets to Mexico impacted the
Larimer County District Court’s allocation of marital assets to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff
does not have the personal knowledge to testify about whether the Larimer County
District Court would have allocated to Plaintiff some or all of the money Michael
Schaible transferred to Mexico. (Id. at 8–9.)

3

As an initial matter, as Plaintiff points out, this portion of Defendants’ Motion is a
thinly-veiled motion for summary judgment because it seeks a ruling that some or all of
Plaintiff’s damages are unavailable as a matter of law. The Court could deny this
portion of Defendants’ Motion on this basis alone. (See WJM Revised Practice
Standard III.G.1. (“A motion in limine that is a veiled motion for summary judgment may
also be denied out of hand.”).)
At any rate, Defendants’ argument misses the mark. The jury will be asked to
determine whether Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff in 2017, and, if
so, the amount she was harmed by Defendants’ actions. How the Larimer County
District Court allocated assets belonging to the couple two years later does not
meaningfully affect this analysis. As the Court has already recognized in the context of
determining whether Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact:
On the allegations, however, Plaintiff has suffered an
economic loss at the hands of Thomas [Schaible]; the fact
that Michael [Schaible] has been ordered to remedy such
loss is of no moment. . . . While Plaintiff would perhaps lack
standing had Michael [Schaible] actually paid Plaintiff her
equitable share of the wrongfully transferred funds, it is
uncontested in this litigation that Michael [Schaible] has
failed to make any payments to Plaintiff pursuant to the
divorce court’s permanent orders.
...
The Court can redress Plaintiff’s injury by awarding her
damages in the amount of her equitable share of the funds
that were transferred to Mexico. Should Michael [Schaible]
ultimately pay Plaintiff pursuant to the divorce court’s
permanent orders, a [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure]
60(b)(5) amendment of judgment would likely be
appropriate.

4

(ECF No. 82 at 13–14, 17–18.)
This analysis applies with equal force to the present evidentiary dispute. As
Plaintiff points out, she still has not received any of the required payments from Michael
Schaible pursuant to the Permanent Orders. (ECF No. 275 at 3.) As such, if the jury
determines that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff, the jury will be
also entitled to consider whether—and the extent to which—Plaintiff was harmed as a
result of Defendants’ conduct. Any amount that she would receive in such a scenario
would come from Defendants, not Michael Schaible. Whether, and the extent to which,
this affects the Larimer County District Court’s allocation of marital assets is a matter for
the parties (or Michael Schaible, who—it cannot be stressed enough—is not a party to
this case) to take up with the Larimer County District Court.
In the Court’s view, the Larimer County District Court divorce proceedings bear
little to no relevance to the breach of fiduciary duty claim in this action. Under Rule 403,
the marginal probative value of allowing evidence or argument related to the Larimer
County District Court proceedings is substantially outweighed by a danger of confusing
the issues, misleading the jury, and causing a considerable waste of the Court’s and the
parties’ time, effort, and attention. After all, to the extent Defendants are permitted to
introduce evidence relating to the Larimer County District Court proceedings, the Court
anticipates that Plaintiff would then attempt to present her own rebuttal evidence
relating to Michael Schaible’s compliance (or lack thereof) with the orders in those
proceedings, thereby creating a hugely-disruptive trial within a trial far removed from the

5

underlying claim in this lawsuit. Accordingly, exercising its authority under Federal Rule
of Evidence 611 to control the introduction of evidence, avoid wasting time and
resources, as well as confusing the issues to be presented to the jury, the Court will not
permit any argument or evidence relating to the Larimer County District Court
proceedings at trial.
Accordingly, this portion of Defendants’ Motion is denied.
B.

Evidence Regarding Damages Based on Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Defendants argue that under Colorado law, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to

recover her attorney’s fees and costs as damages, those fees and costs “must be
determined by the trier of fact and proved during the damages phase.” (ECF No. 268 at
9.) They argue that because Plaintiff did not provide a computation of her attorney’s
fees and costs and did not produce all non-privileged documents supporting her
computation, Plaintiff should be barred from seeking her attorney’s fees and costs.
Plaintiff responds that Colorado law provides that an award of attorney’s fees in a
breach of trust action should not be considered damages to be determined by the jury.
(ECF No. 275 at 3.) She argues that although “[a]ttorney’s fees as damages are
available in Colorado under the ‘wrong of another’ doctrine, . . . Plaintiff does not and
has never sought such damages” and therefore that she was not required to provide
computation and/or evidence regarding her attorney’s fees prior to trial. (Id. at 4–5.)
She further contends that if she is the prevailing party, it will be proper for the Court to
award attorney’s fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). (Id.)
Based on Plaintiff’s representation that she is not seeking attorney’s fees and

6

costs as damages that must be determined by the jury, this portion of Defendants’
Motion is denied as moot. However, this ruling is not intended to preclude Plaintiff from
filing a post-trial motion seeking attorney’s fees and costs under Federal Rule of
Evidence Rule 54(d) to be determined by the Court if she prevails at trial and if she is
entitled to do so pursuant to applicable case law.
Accordingly, this portion of the Defendants’ Motion is denied as moot.
C.

Evidence Regarding Exemplary Damages
Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from presenting evidence or argument to

support a claim for exemplary damages. (ECF No. 268 at 10.) They note that although
the Court has twice denied Plaintiff’s requests to add a claim for exemplary damages,
Plaintiff states in the Final Pretrial Order that “she seeks exemplary damages against
both Defendants based on their willful and wanton conduct.” (Id. (citing ECF No. 208 at
17).)
Plaintiff responds that there is no evidentiary issue concerning punitive damages
as it will be up to the Court to decide whether to instruct the jury on punitive damages.
(ECF No. 275 at 5.) She further argues that she will “put on her evidence at trial
regarding breach of fiduciary duty; there is no separable evidence that relates solely to
punitive damages such as the financial condition of the Defendants.” (Id.)
Because the Court has already twice denied Plaintiff’s requests to add an
exemplary damages claim at trial (see ECF Nos. 150, 205), the undersigned will neither
instruct the jury on exemplary damages nor allow counsel to make arguments on this
topic. Given that the Court has already ruled on such matters, this portion of

7

Defendants’ Motion is denied as moot.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff, however, that the evidence supporting a claim for
exemplary damages claim is not separable in any meaningful manner from her
evidence at trial regarding her breach of fiduciary duty claim. The Court therefore will
not limit Plaintiff’s presentation of evidence at this juncture. Accordingly, this portion of
Defendants’ Motion is denied.
III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE (ECF No. 266)
Plaintiff seeks an to preclude all evidence and argument concerning: (1) any
settlement offers from Michael Schaible, (2) Plaintiff’s financial wealth, including but not
limited to, amounts awarded to her pursuant to the Larimer County District Court’s
Permanent Orders and resulting judgments and her ownership of real estate and
businesses in Mexico, (3) the pending Mexican divorce and pending Mexican
annulment proceeding between Michael Schaible and Plaintiff, including but not limited
to the alleged Mexican injunction and the possible future division of their Mexican
assets, (4) any expert testimony of Mr. Gustavo Echeveste, and (5) the English
translations of the Mexican divorce and annulment proceeding documents. (ECF No.
266 at 1.) The Court considers each request below.
A.

Settlement Offers
Plaintiff contends that Defendant Schaible intends to present evidence and

arguments regarding Michael Schaible’s settlement offers to Plaintiff for the purpose of
arguing that she has failed to mitigate her damages by unreasonably refusing Michael
Schaible’s settlement offer. (ECF No. 266 at 2.) She represents that Michael Schaible

8

offered her $1.25 million in exchange for her releasing her claims against Defendants
(which she values at more than $3.25 million), as well as her interest in a Mexican entity
known as “Baja Vivero,” which held real estate interests valued by the Larimer County
District Court in January 2019 at $4,648,896.71. (Id. at 3.) She contends that this
evidence must be excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 408. (Id.)
Defendants respond that they do not intend to use Michael Schaible’s settlement
offer to either prove or disprove the validity or amount of Plaintiff’s claim or for mitigation
of damages; to the contrary, they argue “[t]he evidence and arguments of Michael
Schaible’s offer to pay Plaintiff rebuts her assertion that assets in Mexico are lost to
Plaintiff or that Michael Schaible is unwilling to pay.” (ECF No. 277 at 1–2.)
After carefully considering the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that it is
proper to exclude evidence and argument regarding Michael Schaible’s settlement offer
to Plaintiff. If the Court were to allow Defendants to present the evidence or argument
relating to Michael Schaible’s settlement offer, the Court would also be required to allow
Plaintiff to present rebuttal evidence regarding the fairness of the offer. Such issues
bear little relevance to the breach of fiduciary duty claim at issue in this litigation.
Moreover, under Rule 403, any limited probative value of this evidence would be
substantially outweighed by its prejudicial value, namely confusing the issues to be
decided by the jury, as well as wasting the Court’s and parties’ time.
Accordingly, the Court grants this portion of Plaintiff’s Motion.
B.

Evidence of Mexican Divorce and Annulment Proceedings
Plaintiff seeks to preclude Defendants from introducing any argument or

9

evidence regarding her and Michael Schaible’s Mexican divorce and annulment
proceedings. (ECF No. 266 at 5.) She argues that “evidence concerning the Mexican
legal proceedings—dissimilar proceedings that do not involve either Defendant—have
no bearing on any of the elements of Plaintiff’s claim or the Defendants’ affirmative
defenses in this case.” (Id.) She further points to Michael Schaible’s statements that
the funds frozen in Mexico have been spent, and she contends that any evidence or
argument about the division of assets in the Mexican divorce proceeding is purely
speculative and irrelevant. (Id.)
Defendants respond that “Michael Schaible and Gustavo Echeveste will testify
that the proceedings in Mexico are necessary in order for Michael Schaible to sell and
withdraw profits from the businesses and properties the former couple own in Mexico.”
(ECF No. 277 at 4.) They represent that “Michael will testify that he cannot pay Plaintiff
until he obtains orders from the Mexican court allowing the required sales and transfers”
and that “the testimony on the proceedings in Mexico will inform the jury that Plaintiff
has refused to participate in the proceedings in Mexico required to facilitate those
transfers.” (Id. at 4–5.)
The Court first considers whether Defendants have properly preserved their
argument that the Mexican proceedings are related to their failure to mitigate defense.
In the Final Pretrial Order, Defendants describe their failure to mitigate affirmative
defense without explicitly referencing Mexican proceedings:
Plaintiff failed to mitigate her alleged damages by placing
restrictions on the transfer of her marital property and then
refusing to authorize transfers of funds to allow for the timely

10

payment of expenses and debts incurred by herself and her
family members. Plaintiff also was in possession of
significant assets, including two new diamond rings valued at
over $50,000, but chose not to sell or liquidate those assets
to pay her bills, and instead incurred debt. Defendant is not
responsible for [P]laintiff’s decisions to incur debt rather than
use her substantial assets to fund her living expenses.
Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot recover those expenses and
interest payments from Defendant.
Further, Michael Schaible has offered to return the
[P]laintiff’s equitable share of the $2.5 million funds he
received and [P]laintiff has refused to accept this payment.
Plaintiff has also refused to provide her authorization to sell
their marital assets so that Michael Schaible can satisfy her
January 2019 Colorado divorce $8 million judgment.
(ECF No. 208 at 22–23.) Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that Defendants have
properly preserved their argument that Plaintiff’s purported refusal to participate in the
Mexican proceedings is evidence of her failure to mitigate damages.
However, even assuming Defendants have not waived this argument, the Court
still cannot reasonably conclude that evidence of the Mexican proceedings is relevant.
In considering the parties’ arguments, the Court must again remind itself what this
lawsuit is about: whether Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff. If
Plaintiff prevails at trial, she will obtain a judgment against Defendants, not Michael
Schaible. As such, non-party Michael Schaible’s willingness to pay Plaintiff from
proceeds of the Mexican divorce settlement (to which Defendants are not parties) and
Plaintiff’s compliance (or lack thereof) with the Mexican divorce proceedings does not

11

bear any obvious connection to the issues in this lawsuit. 1 Any purported relevance
becomes even more attenuated when the Court considers the following facts: (1) the
Mexican proceedings remain ongoing; and (2) Michael Schaible has yet to comply with
the Permanent Orders, thus casting doubt on any notion that the only thing stopping
Plaintiff from recovering amounts allegedly owed to her is her purported lack of
participation in the Mexican divorce proceedings. 2
Furthermore, the limited relevance of Plaintiff’s participation in the Mexican
divorce proceedings is vastly outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues and
needlessly and extraordinarily complicating the trial. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 403
and exercising its authority under Federal Rule of Evidence 611 to control the
introduction of evidence and avoid wasting time, the Court will not permit any argument
or evidence relating to the Mexican divorce and annulment proceedings at trial. 3
C.

Evidence of Plaintiff’s Financial Wealth

This conclusion is consistent with the undersigned’s Order Denying Defendant Thomas
Schaible’s Motion for Stay of Trial. (See ECF No. 258 at 3–4 (“After all, the resolution of
Plaintiff’s divorce proceedings will not determine whether Defendants—who are not parties to
the divorce proceedings—breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by transferring funds to
Michael Schaible.”).)
1

Indeed, on March 7, 2022, Defendant Schaible’s counsel informed the Court that
although he had previously anticipated that Michael Schaible would testify in his deposition that
“[t]he funds which Michael transferred to Mexico are intact and available to return to [P]laintiff as
part of the equitable distribution in Mexico,” Defendant Schaible’s counsel subsequently learned
that Michael Schaible would likely testify that the funds have been reinvested in supporting his
children and maintaining the businesses, properties, and other assets that he and Plaintiff
continue to own together in Mexico. (ECF No. 261.)
2

The Court reiterates that neither Defendants nor Michael Schaible are without their
recourse by the undersigned’s ruling. After all, if Plaintiff prevails at trial, the parties will be able
to argue what effect, if any, the resulting judgment against Defendants should have on the
ongoing Mexican divorce and annulment proceedings. (ECF No. 258 at 4–5.)
3

12

Plaintiff requests, pursuant to Rules 402 and 403, that the Court prohibit the
Defendants from introducing evidence and argument concerning Plaintiff’s assets,
including but not limited to the amounts awarded to her pursuant to the Larimer County
District Court’s Permanent Orders, her ownership of real estate and businesses in
Mexico, and her judgments against Michael Schaible. (ECF No. 266 at 3–4.) She
argues that this evidence is irrelevant because her claim for damages resulting from her
purported emotional distress “does not arise out of financial destitution” and is instead
based on “the emotional distress that Defendants caused her by depriving her of control
over more than $3.25M, interfering with her wish to live her life independently from
Michael [Schaible], and their betrayal of trust when she needed Defendant Schaible the
most.” (Id. at 4.)
Defendants argue that although Plaintiff’s wealth is not at issue, the amounts she
was awarded pursuant to the Permanent Orders and her ownership of real estate and
businesses in Mexico are directly relevant to determining “whether Plaintiff sustained he
economic damages she claims and whether she has failed to mitigate her damages.”
(ECF No. 277 at 2.)
As an initial matter, for the reasons set forth above in Part II.A, the Court has
already excluded evidence and argument relating to the Larimer County District Court
proceedings and Mexican divorce and annulment proceedings. Moreover, the Court
agrees with Plaintiff that evidence regarding her financial assets is not directly relevant
to the underlying issues in this litigation and therefore should be excluded. As the Tenth
Circuit has recognized, “[r]eference to the wealth or poverty of either party, or reflection

13

on financial disparity, is clearly improper argument.” Garcia v. Sam Tanksley Trucking,
Inc., 708 F.2d 519, 522 (10th Cir. 1983).
Nonetheless, Plaintiff may open the door to the introduction of this evidence
during trial by arguing that Defendants’ purported actions caused her financial distress.
If this happens, evidence relating to Plaintiff’s financial wealth may become relevant as
rebuttal evidence or as impeachment evidence. However, unless and until Plaintiff
inexplicably opens that evidentiary door by placing her financial status at issue,
Defendants will not be permitted to introduce evidence or argument regarding Plaintiff’s
wealth.
Accordingly, this portion of Plaintiff’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part
as set forth herein.
D.

Mr. Echeveste’s Expert Opinion Testimony
Plaintiff contends that Gustavo Echeveste gave expert testimony regarding the

Mexican divorce and annulment proceedings during his March 10, 2022 preservation
deposition notwithstanding the fact that he was never disclosed as an expert witness.
(ECF No. 266 at 8.) She argues that his testimony must be excluded: (1) as improper
expert opinion testimony; (2) for the same reasons for excluding evidence of the
Mexican divorce and annulment proceedings; (3) because Mr. Echeveste served as
both Michael Schaible’s divorce attorney and as the attorney for the couple’s jointly
owned Mexican business, he has a conflict of interest under Colorado Rule of
Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(2). (Id.)
Because the Court has excluded all evidence of the Mexico divorce and

14

annulment proceedings—including Mr. Echeveste’s testimony regarding those
proceedings—this portion of Plaintiff’s Motion is denied as moot.
E.

English Translations of Mexican Divorce and Annulment Proceedings
Plaintiff argues that the Court should preclude any argument or evidence

regarding the English translations of certain documents from the Mexican divorce and
annulment proceedings on the basis that these documents were not properly
authenticated. (ECF No. 266 at 9–10.)
Because the Court has excluded all evidence of the Mexico divorce and
annulment proceedings, this portion of Plaintiff’s Motion is denied as moot.
IV. EFFECT OF THIS ORDER ON REMAINING TRIAL DELIVERABLES
The Court pauses to clarify how this Order affects other rulings issued by the
undersigned throughout the course of litigation in this case.
First, the Court wishes to avoid any lingering uncertainty about the effect of the
Court’s rulings today on: (1) the undersigned’s January 24, 2022 Order Denying
Plaintiff’s to Strike Defendant Thomas Schaible’s Improperly Disclosed Witness
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) and Granting Defendant Schaible’s Motion for Leave
to Amend Final Pretrial Order to Add Additional Documents From the Plaintiff’s Divorce
Case in Mexico (ECF No. 243); and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang’s
Order on Defendant Schaible’s Motion in Support of Taking Testimony De Bene Esse to
Preserve the Testimony of Three Witnesses from Mexico (ECF No. 247). In those
orders, the undersigned and Judge Wang allowed Defendants to amend the Final
Pretrial Order and take preservation depositions on topics relating to the Mexican

15

divorce and annulment proceedings while explicitly reserving relevancy determinations
for motions in limine or at trial. (ECF No. 243 at 8 n.4; ECF No. 247 at 8, 11.) The
parties are advised that now that the Court has resolved relevancy objections relating to
this evidence, all evidence and argument relating to the Larimer County District
Court and the Mexican divorce and annulment proceedings—including the
documents added to the Final Pretrial Order pursuant to the Court’s January 24,
2022 Order—are now excluded. As a result, for example, Defendants will not be
permitted to call Mr. Echeveste as a trial witness or otherwise utilize his deposition
testimony at trial.
Second, during the May 6, 2022 Final Trial Preparation Conference, the Court
directed the parties to file amended final exhibit and witness lists by no later than
Wednesday, May 25, 2022. The parties’ revised final exhibit and witness lists must
eliminate all witnesses and all exhibits relating to matters that the Court has now
excluded at trial.
Finally, pursuant to the Court’s May 4, 2022 Order, the parties’ final deposition
designations are due no later than 9:00 AM MDT on Monday, May 16, 2022. (ECF No.
303.) The parties must amend their deposition designations to comply in all respects
with the Court’s rulings in today’s Order. Among other things, the Court will not accept
deposition designations: (1) for Gustavo Echeveste; or (2) for any other witness on
excluded topics.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:

16

1. Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine (ECF No. 268) is DENIED; and
2. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (ECF No. 266) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART, as set forth herein.
Dated this 10th day of May, 2022.
BY THE COURT:

______________________
William J. Martinez
United States District Judge

17