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

Filing 549

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order granting #483 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Salt Lake City's Obligation to Share Recovery. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 2/4/16. (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 GRANTING DEFENDANT
ERM’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF SALT LAKE
CITY’S OBLIGATION TO SHARE
RECOVERY

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 Defendant ERM-West, Inc.’s (“ERM”) Motion in
Limine to Exclude Evidence of Salt Lake City’s Obligation to Share Recovery. In its Motion,
ERM seeks to exclude evidence of or reference to any alleged obligation by the City to share any
recovery in this action with the other Plaintiffs.
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
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,

1

or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” “Rule 403 does not protect a party from all
prejudice, only unfair prejudice.” 1
Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that evidence of an
obligation by the City to share any recovery with the other Plaintiffs has minimal relevance.
Any relevance is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues, misleading the
jury, undue delay, and wasting time.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant ERM’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Salt Lake
City’s Obligation to Share Recovery (Docket No. 483) is GRANTED.
DATED this 4th 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