Salt Lake City Corporation et al v. ERM WEST et al

Filing 527

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order denying #407 Motion in Limine; denying #468 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 2/1/16. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a
Utah municipal corporation; BP
PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
Maryland corporation; and CHEVRON
U.S.A. INC., a Pennsylvania corporation,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’
BANKRUPTCIES

Plaintiffs,
v.
ERM-WEST, INC., a California
corporation; COMPASS
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and WRS
INFRASTRUCTURE AND
ENVIRONMENT, INC., a North Carolina
corporation, d/b/a WRSCOMPASS, INC.,

Case No. 2:11-CV-1174 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Compass Environmental, Inc. (“Compass”)
and WRS Infrastructure’s (“WRS”) Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Defendants’
Bankruptcies. Defendant ERM-West, Inc. (“ERM”) has filed its own Motion, seeking to exclude
evidence of Defendants’ bankruptcies. Defendants seek an order prohibiting Plaintiffs from
introducing any evidence regarding WRS’s and Compass’s bankruptcies. Defendants argue that
allowing such evidence is irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, and should be excluded under Federal
Rule of Evidence 403.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, “[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to
make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of
consequence in determining the action.” Rule 403 states that “[t]he court may exclude relevant

1

evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time,
or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” “Rule 403 does not protect a party from all
prejudice, only unfair prejudice.” 1
Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that evidence of WRS’s and
Compass’s bankruptcies is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, particularly Plaintiffs’ claim for
successor liability/alter ego. While Defendants may suffer some prejudice as a result of this
evidence, the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by this potential
prejudice. Any prejudice from the introduction of such evidence can be cured by the parties
carefully limiting their references to Defendants’ bankruptcies and by a proper limiting
instruction to the jury.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Defendants’
Bankruptcies (Docket Nos. 407 and 468) are DENIED.
DATED this 1st day of February, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

1

Deters v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., Inc., 202 F.3d 1262, 1274 (10th Cir. 2000).
2