Mid-Valley Pipeline Company v. Summit Seals, Inc.

Filing 56

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion in Limine Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 6/12/2013 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
MID-VALLEY PIPELINE COMPANY
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-66(DCB)(MTP)

SUMMIT SEALS, INC.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the plaintiff Mid-Valley
Pipeline Company (“MVPL”)’s motion in limine (docket entry 45).
Having carefully considered the motion, the response of defendant
Summit

Seals,

Inc.

(“Summit

Seals”),

the

memoranda

and

the

applicable law, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court
finds as follows:
In its motion, the plaintiff seeks a prohibition against the
mention of the following matters:
(1) the size, financial condition, or financial status of the
parties and/or their parent and affiliated companies;
(2) the size, location, specialization, representation, or
other work of MVPL or MVPL’s counsel, including:
(a) MVPL’s counsel’s regular representation of oil and gas
related companies in general and/or other specific corporations,
insurance companies, manufacturers or individuals;
(b) the fact that MVPL’s counsel specializes in product
liability cases or cases involving disputes related to the oil and
gas industry; and

(c) facts about MVPL’s counsel’s law practice and other
clients (including, but not limited to, the number of attorneys in
counsel’s

law

firm,

the

location

of

their

offices,

and

the

substantive areas of practice of the law firm);
(3) the request by MVPL to exclude certain evidence including
any motions in limine filed by MVPL.
In addition, MVPL requests the following:
(4) that Court instruct counsel for Summit Seals to apprise
the defendant’s witnesses concerning the Court’s rulings on any
motions in limine, to ensure that the Court’s orders are not
violated by any witness;
(5) the sequestration of all non-party lay witnesses, and an
instruction

prohibiting

those

witnesses

from

hearing

the

testimonies of other witnesses and from discussing this case or
their testimony with other witnesses, in accordance with Federal
Rule of Evidence 615;
(6) an Order requiring that any evidentiary issues be resolved
in a Rule 104 hearing outside the presence of the jury, in
accordance with Federal Rules of Evidence 104 and 403.
Summit Seals responds as follows:
(1) Agreed;
(2)

Agreed

as

to

the

size,

location,

specialization,

representation or other work of plaintiff’s attorneys, provided the
plaintiff is also prohibited from making any such references to

2

Summit Seals’ attorneys.

However, Summit Seals objects to MVPL’s

request to the extent that it seeks to preclude Summit Seals from
referencing

matters

such

as

the

location,

specialization,

representation and work of MVPL itself, inasmuch as these matters
are necessary for the jury to have a complete understanding of the
project and work which are the subject of this litigation.

In

particular, Summit Seals argues:
Summit Seals objects to the request that Summit Seals
be prohibited from making any reference to the location,
specialization and work of Mid-Valley Pipeline itself
and/or related companies like Sunoco. The jury will need
to know that Mid-Valley Pipeline is affiliated with
Sunoco. For instance, the subject contract for Summit
Seals’ work on the project was actually a contract with
Sunoco, not Mid-Valley Pipeline. Further, the supervisor
for Mid-Valley Pipeline on the subject project testified
that he was employed by Sunoco.
Likewise, there are
several policies and procedures that apply to the type of
work being performed by Summit Seals and that applied to
the storage tank generally.
These policies and
procedures were issued by Sunoco and they are relevant in
this suit. The jury will also need to know that MidValley Pipeline and/or Sunoco’s business dealt with oil,
pipelines and storage tanks. It is also relevant that
Mid-Valley Pipeline and/or Sunoco had other locations on
which Summit Seals had performed work in the past.
Defendant’s Brief in Response, p. 2;
(3) Agreed;
(4) Agreed;
(5) Agreed;
(6) Summit Seals objects to the extent that MVPL seeks a Rule
104 hearing for every evidentiary issue that might arise, which
could be impracticable depending on the frequency of evidentiary

3

objections during trial.
Since the plaintiff has not filed a reply brief, the Court
assumes that the plaintiff is in agreement with the defendant’s
objections.

As the defendant points out, any objections by the

plaintiff regarding testimony or other evidence as to the location,
specialization and work of Mid-Valley Pipeline and its related
companies can be raised by the plaintiff at trial. As for hearings
regarding evidentiary objections in general, routine objections
usually do not require a hearing; where a hearing is required, it
will be conducted outside the presence of the jury, or at least
outside the hearing of the jury, depending on the complexity of the
issues involved.
The plaintiff’s motion in limine shall therefore be granted in
part and denied in part.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff Mid-Valley Pipeline
Company’s motion in limine (docket entry 45) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART, as set forth in this Order.
SO ORDERED, this the 12th day of June, 2013.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4