Adams, et al v. USA
Filing
1480
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Re: DuPont's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Additional Legal Conclusions in ISDA Letter. DuPont's Motion in Limine 1055 is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
) TIMM ADAMS, et al, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) et al, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________)
Civ. No. 03-0049-E-BLW MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: DUPONT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ADDITIONAL LEGAL CONCLUSIONS IN ISDA LETTER (Docket No. 1055)
INTRODUCTION The Court has before it DuPont's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Additional Legal Conclusions in ISDA Letter (Docket No. 1055). DISCUSSION On May 5, 2009, this Court granted the Government's motion in limine to exclude a sentence in an ISDA report as a "legal conclusion." See 5/5/09 MDO (Docket No. 1054) (excluding sentence stating ISDA's conclusion that application MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
of Oust "to highly erodible lands . . . resulted in damage to agricultural crops" and violated Idaho Code, specifically § 22-3420(8)). In light of this earlier ruling, DuPont now moves the Court for a related order, "excluding any evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting any ISDA conclusion that BLM or its applicators applied Oust consistent with section 3 or 24(c) labels or that BLM or its applicators did not violate the section 3 or 24(c) label." See Mot. in Limine to Exclude, p. 1 (Docket No. 1055). DuPont argues that, consistent with its prior decision, "ISDA's statements that BLM and its applicators did not violate the label must likewise be excluded as inadmissible legal conclusions." See id. at p. 3. The Court disagrees. FRE 803(8)(C) allows into evidence public reports that (1) set forth factual findings (2) made pursuant to authority granted by law (3) that the judge finds trustworthy. The term "factual findings" in FRE 803(8)(C) includes "not only what happened, but how it happened, why it happened, and who caused it to happen." See 5/13/09 MDO (Docket No. 1080) (citing Graham, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 7049 at p. 649 (2000)). In the Court's mind, the ISDA's conclusion that the BLM violated Idaho Code § 22-3420(8) is a legal conclusion beyond the permit of FRE 803(8)(C). However, the same cannot be said about the statements DuPont seeks to exclude here. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
Simply put, ISDA statements regarding an applicator's conduct vis a vis Oust's label is not a legal conclusion. While the Court recognizes that an argument can be massaged to the point of drawing logical comparisons between such statements, they are not legally parallel as DuPont suggests. The statements regarding the applicator's conduct reflect factual findings, and are therefore subject to rebuttal testimony, ultimately allowing the jury to decide the issue. This distinguishes these findings from a definitive conclusion concerning a violation of Idaho law. Indeed, many of the arguments throughout trial focused on whether Oust was applied consistent with its label. These statements will not be excluded. ORDER In accordance with the Memorandum Decision filed above, NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that DuPont's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Additional Legal Conclusions in ISDA Letter (Docket No. 1055) is DENIED. DATED: August 16, 2009
Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
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?