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

Filing 554

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order granting in part and denying in part #416 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part #427 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 2/5/16. (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 IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
PAROL EVIDENCE LEADING UP TO
THE 2006 CHANGE ORDER

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 Parol Evidence Leading up to
the 2006 Change Order. Defendant ERM-West, Inc. (“ERM”) has filed its own Motion, joining
in the arguments of Compass and WRS. Defendants seek an order prohibiting Plaintiffs from
introducing any evidence regarding the discussion, correspondence, and negotiations leading up
to the 2006 change order. Defendants argue that such evidence is barred by the parol evidence
rule.
The parol evidence “rule operates, in the absence of invalidating causes such as fraud or
illegality, to exclude evidence of prior or contemporaneous conversations, representations, or

1

statements offered for the purpose of varying or adding to the terms of an integrated contract.” 1
The Utah Supreme Court has held that this rule “has a very narrow application.” 2
To the extent that Plaintiffs seek admission of parol evidence to vary or add to the terms
of the 2006 change order, such evidence will be excluded. However, to the extent that Plaintiffs
seek admission of such evidence for other purposes, it will be admitted. Objections to specific
evidence and testimony may be made at trial.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions in Limine to Exclude Parol Evidence Leading up
to the 2006 Change Order (Docket Nos. 416 and 427) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART.
DATED this 5th day of February, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

1

Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass’n, 907 P.2d 264, 268 (Utah 1995).

2

Union Bank v. Swenson, 707 P.2d 663, 665 (Utah 1985).
2