Tucker v. Cascade General, Inc. et al

Filing 170

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL DAMAGES ( re: documenets 152 , 120 and 125 ). Dated this 9th day of November, 2011, by U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
CV 09-1491-AC

PHILIP TUCKER and TONI HOTTEN,
husband and wife,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER ON
OBJECTIONS TO
SPECIAL DAMAGES

v.
CASCADE GENERAL, INC., an Oregon
corporation, and UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants.
ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge
This order addresses the Defendants' to Plaintiffs' Special Damages, which appears in the
court file as Docket No. 120. The court has issued a separate order containing its ruling on the
parties' respective motions in limine. To the extent that the parties made objections to Plaintiffs'
special damages that fall within the scope of the motions in limine, the parties are directed to
consult the court's rulings on those motions. In the event of a conflict between the court's ruling
on the motions in limine and the court's ruling on the motions in limine control.

Page I - ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL DAMAGES

Furthermore, the court also has ruled (see Docket No. 161) on Plaintiffs' motion (Docket
No. 135) to amend their damages allegations, and on reconsideration revised its ruling regarding
Plaintiff Hotten's loss of consortium damages. In the event of a conflict between the COUlt'S
revised ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to amend and Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' Special
Damages, and the cOUlt's revised ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to amend controls.

1.

Cascade General's Objections

Cascade General generally reiterates the objections and arguments it asserted in support
of its Motion in Limine No.5. and in its opposition to Plaintiffs' recent motion to amend
complaint. Similarly, Plaintiffs asselt arguments they previously asserted in support of their
position in connection with those motions. The United States filed no objections to Plaintiffs'
special damages beyond those objections contained in their motions in limine.
The court overrules the objections. The Plaintiffs' revised present value figure does not
prejudice the Defendants. Plaintiffs represent the figure is lower, their expert's prior calculation
can be used by Defendants as impeaclllilent, and the method of calculation is either known to the
Defendants or available to them. Finally, Tucker's promotion is a question for the jUly to
determine, and on that issue Plaintiffs must provide an adequate foundation for the assumption
upon which their expert's calculations are based.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

0./,!/h
..

_ L _ __
_

l~olm V. Acos a
U.~Magistrate Judge

Page 2 - ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL DAMAGES