OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS,etc. v. BALDWIN, et.al.

Filing 511

ORDER OF COURT GRANTING 481 Defendants' Motion in Limine on Causation; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 483 494 Plaintiff's Objections to Certain of Defendants' Demonstrative Exhibits; and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 485 Defendants' Objections to Certain of Plaintiff's Rule 1006 Exhibits. See Order for further details and for rulings on specific exhibits. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 2/5/2013. (lcb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED
CREDITORS, on behalf of the estate of
LEMINGTON HOME FOR THE AGED,

10cv800
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Plaintiff,
v.
ARTHUR BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER OF COURT RE:
PARTIES’ ADDITIONAL MOTIONS IN LIMINE/EXHIBIT OBJECTIONS
Based upon the Court’s instructions, the parties were permitted to file additional Motions
in Limine and responses thereto by set dates. Four additional Motions in Limine are pending
before this Court.
AND NOW, this 5th day of February 2013, after careful consideration of the Motions in
Limine pending before this Court (Doc. Nos. 481, 483, 485, 494) and the Responses in
Opposition (Doc. Nos. 497, 498, 499), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendants’ Motion in Limine on Causation (Doc. No. 481) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is
required to prove that any alleged breaches of fiduciary duty or deepening insolvency
caused the damages alleged. Therefore, Defendants may argue that their actions and/or
inactions did not cause harm to the Home. However, they may not challenge the specific
amounts of proofs of claims.

2. The following Defendants’ Objections to Certain of Plaintiff’s Rule 1006 Exhibits (Doc.
No. 485) are OVERRULED:



P-224; and
P-225.

Defendants’ objection to the following Rule 1006 Exhibit is SUSTAINED:


P-227 because it does not state that the number is based upon a summation of
proofs of claims. Further, Plaintiff may not use the word “minimum.” Plaintiff
may file a new P-227 on or before February 8, 2013, at NOON.

3. The following Plaintiff’s Objections to Certain of Defendants’ Demonstrative Exhibits
(Doc. Nos. 483 & 494) are OVERRULED1:























D-58 (D-94);
D-59 (D-95);
D-60 (D-96);
D-61 (D-97);
D-62 (D-98);
D-63 (D-99);
D-64 (D-100);
D-67 (D-103);
D-68 (D-104);
D-69 (D-105);
D-70 (D-106);
D-71 (D-107);
D-72 (D-108);
D-73 (D-109);
D-74 (D-110);
D-75 (D-111);
D-76 (D-112);
D-77 (D-113);
D-78 (D-114);
D-79 (D-115);
D-80 (D-116);
D-81 (D-117);

1

At the Court’s direction, the parties filed a joint document clarifying the numbering of
Defendants’ exhibits. Doc. No. 505. This Order has the “old” number of the exhibit followed by
the new exhibit number, which will be used hereafter.
2










D-82 (D-118);
D-83 (D-119);
D-84 (D-120);
D-85 (D-121);
D-86 (D-122);
D-87 (D-123);
D-88 (D-124); and
D-89 (D-125) (except as outlined in this Court’s Order re. Parties’ Objections to
PowerPoints).

Plaintiff’s objections to the following Demonstrative Exhibits are SUSTAINED:



D-65 (D-101); and
D-66 (D-102).

s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge

cc:

All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties

3