United States et al v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America et al

Filing 178

ORDER denying without prejudice 157 Motion in Limine Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 11/18/2013 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES FOR THE USE AND
BENEFIT OF MID STATE CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC.; and MID STATE
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
VS.

PLAINTIFFS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-169(DCB)(MTP)

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND
SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA; U.S.
COATING SPECIALTIES & SUPPLIES,
LLC; and EARL WASHINGTON

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This

cause

is

before

the

Court

on

plaintiff

Mid

State

Construction Company, Inc. (“Mid State”)’s Motion In Limine to
Exclude Evidence from Travelers Regarding the Payment Dispute
Between Mid State and U.S. Coating (docket entry 157).

Having

carefully considered the motion and response, the memoranda and
applicable law, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court
finds as follows:
Mid State seeks an order barring Travelers from offering any
evidence or testimony that attempts to describe or otherwise
characterize
Coating.

the

payment

dispute

between

Mid

State

and

U.S.

On April 30, 2013, Mid State took a 30(b)(6) deposition

of Roberta Ziv-Goldstein, Travelers’ designee. The 30(b)(6) notice
served by Mid State included a request for information concerning,
inter alia, Travelers’ investigations into whether U.S. Coating
properly paid Mid State, and the circumstances regarding U.S.

Coating’s and Mid State’s payment dispute.

Mid State argues that

because Travelers failed to fully respond to these requests through
Ms. Ziv-Goldstein, and failed to offer a substitute witness to do
so, it should be barred from presenting such evidence at trial
beyond Ms. Ziv-Goldstein’s existing testimony.
Travelers responds that Ms. Ziv-Goldstein did respond to the
questions put to her regarding U.S. Coating’s and Mid State’s
payment dispute. Furthermore, she was the person who conducted the
investigation for Travelers.

The question is whether her answers

were deficient and, if so, whether Travelers can offer supplemental
answers at trial.

This can only be resolved on a question-by-

question basis, and the Court will have to address the issue at
trial.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Mid State Construction
Company, Inc.’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence from Travelers
Regarding the Payment Dispute Between Mid State and U.S. Coating
(docket entry 157) is DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this the 18th day of November, 2013.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2