Velocity Press v. Key Bank et al

Filing 230

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Orderdenying Without Prejudice 118 Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Oral Promises. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 09/26/2011. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

VELOCITY PRESS, INC., a Utah
corporation,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE OF ORAL PROMISES

vs.

KEY BANK, N.A., Q.A.M., INC., a Virginia
corporation dba SANDEN USA, INC.;
Q.A.M., INTERNATIONAL, a Nevada
corporation; ROBERT PITEL, an individual;
DOUGLAS JUSTUS, an individual; DOE
DEFENDANTS I through X,

Case No. 2:09-CV-520 TS

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant KeyBank’s Motion in Limine to Exclude
Evidence of Oral Promises.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Defendant’s
Motion without prejudice.

1

Docket No. 118.
1

Defendant filed the present Motion on December 17, 2010, along with four other
motions in limine. In this Motion, Defendant KeyBank requests that the Court preclude Plaintiff
Velocity Press, Inc. from offering evidence about any alleged breach of contract that is not based
solely on written agreements between the parties, as KeyBank alleges that this testimony would
violate the parol evidence rule. As KeyBank fails to identify any specific statements or testimony
that it wishes the Court to exclude, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion. Either party may
object at trial if it feels that specific evidence violates the parol evidence rule and the Court will
evaluate the evidence and apply the rule at that time.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Oral Promises
(Docket No. 118) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED September 26, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

2