Communications Unlimited Contracting Services, Inc. et al v. Broadband Infrastructure Connection, LLC et al

Filing 196

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER [SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS.] Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 4/4/2019. (AFC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED,
CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE
CONNECTION, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-00516-AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Upon review of the record and following the final pretrial conference in this case
held on the record on April 3, 2019, and for the reasons stated more fully on the open
record, the Court sets forth its rulings on the parties’ motions in limine as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CUI’s motion in limine is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part, as set forth below. ECF No. 187.
1. Evidence concerning Broadband’s net worth or valuation of Broadband and any
financial disparity between the parties: DENIED as moot, as Defendants do not
intend to offer evidence of Broadband’s financial circumstances. Defendants
may offer evidence that Broadband is no longer in business. However, evidence
of an Asset Purchase Agreement between CUI and Broadband dated April 2013,
subsequent to the events relevant to this case, will be excluded.

2. Evidence of uncalled witnesses: DENIED as moot. Neither party intends to
adduce evidence of uncalled witnesses.
3. Evidence of Charter’s understanding of CUI’s and Broadband’s business
operations: GRANTED to the extent offered to challenge the credibility or
truthfulness of CUI witnesses or to prove CUI’s control over Broadband.
However, such evidence will be permitted to the extent relevant to CUI’s
motivation to conceal Broadband’s role in CUI’s service to Charter.
4. Evidence or testimony concerning the Master Contractor Agreement between
CUI and Charter: GRANTED at this time for the same reason. Defendants may
seek leave to introduce this evidence should it become relevant for purposes of
impeachment or if otherwise invited by Plaintiffs.
5. Evidence of other lawsuits involving Plaintiffs: DENIED as moot, as
Defendants do not intend to offer such evidence.
6. Evidence, testimony, or argument about the relationship between CUI’s three
corporate entities: DENIED as moot, as Defendants do not intend to offer such
evidence.
7. Testimony that James Helderle was only a potential or prospective employee of
Broadband: DENIED as moot; Plaintiffs have withdrawn their motion with
respect to this evidence.
8. Witnesses, documents, and information not produced in discovery: DENIED as
moot. Neither party intends to adduce such evidence.

-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Broadband’s motion in limine is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth below. ECF No. 177.
1. Evidence of CUI’s damages in excess of $150,000: This matter is held in
abeyance pending the parties’ determination and the Court’s resolution of how
the case is to be structured for trial and presented to the jury.
2. Argument that CUI is an agent of Travelers: This matter is held in abeyance
pending the parties’ determination and the Court’s resolution of how the case is
to be structured for trial and presented to the jury.
3. Any claim or computation of CUI’s claimed damages not previously disclosed:
This matter is held in abeyance pending the parties’ determination and the
Court’s resolution of how the case is to be structured for trial and presented to
the jury.
4. Claims and theories of liability not pleaded in CUI’s complaint: DENIED.
5. Broadband’s settlement with Jane Doe: GRANTED, except to the extent
Defendants open the door to such evidence.
6. The details of Helderle’s assault on Doe: DENIED as moot. The parties
shall agree on language describing the fact and general nature of Helderle’s
assault without reference to specific details revealed in Doe’s underlying
petition.
7. Argument or implication that certain documents bearing a Broadband bates
label are Broadband documents: DENIED as moot, as Plaintiffs do not
intend to insert this issue.
-3-

8. Character evidence regarding any party’s employee and regarding Helderle:
DENIED as moot, as Plaintiff does not intend to offer such evidence.
9. Testimony about the credibility of other witnesses: DENIED as moot.
Neither party intends to offer such evidence.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mid-Continent’s motion in limine is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth below. ECF No. 175.
1. Evidence or testimony as to whether Mid-Continent’s policy covers
Plaintiffs’ claimed loss: DENIED as moot. Neither party intends or shall be
permitted to offer evidence on the legal question of whether Mid-Continent’s
policy covers CUI’s claimed loss. However, the parties shall be permitted to
discuss the existence of insurance policies and insurer parties as relevant to
the factual disputes to be resolved by the jury.
2. The details of Helderle’s assault: DENIED as moot, for the reasons
previously stated.

-4-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Broadband’s motion to strike and for
protective order regarding witness Heather Hatley is DENIED as moot. ECF No. 192.
Plaintiffs do not intend to call this witness.

________________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 4th day of April, 2019.

-5-