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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?