Whitford et al v. Mt Baker Ski Area, Inc.

Filing 86

ORDER regarding pltfs' 50 First Motion in Limine; and pltfs' 66 Supplemental Motion in Limine by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

PAUL WHITFORD and MEGAN
JAYNE WHITFORD,

11
Plaintiffs,
12
v.

CASE NO. 11-0112-RSM
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION IN LIMINE AND
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL
MOTIONS IN LIMINE

13
14

MT. BAKER SKI AREA, INC., a
corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Washington,

15
Defendant.
16
17
18
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ First Motion in Limine (Dkt. #
19
50) and Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motions in Limine (Dkt. # 66). Having considered the
20
pleadings and the records on file herein, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
21
1. That Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude evidence or testimony regarding prior
22
incidents or the lack thereof is DEFFERED. The Court will rule at trial on a case-by23
case basis. Irrelevant testimony will be excluded.
24
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE AND PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS
IN LIMINE - 1

1
2
3
4
5

2. That Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude evidence of safety inspections is
DENIED.
3. That Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude testimony by Mr. John Mauch regarding
the “sufficiency” of the safety net is DENIED.
4. That Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude testimony of witnesses not designated

6

pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice is DENIED.

7

5. That Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude testimony regarding the absence of

8
9

similar falls at other ski areas is DENIED.
6. That the parties have represented to the Court that they have STIPULATED to

10

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude evidence of Defendant’s safety practices and

11

safety history not relating to the Chair No. 1 mid-station.

12

7. That Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude testimony or evidence regarding (i) the

13

snow level at the time of the incident; (ii) the distance between the snow level and the

14

platform; and (iii) the distance that Mr. Whitford fell is DENIED.

15
16
17

8. That Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude testimony that Mr. Whitford did not
appear injured is DENIED.
9. That the parties have represented to the Court that they have STIPULATED to

18

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude evidence or argument that Mr. Whitford’s

19

medical care was not reasonable and necessary.

20

10. That the parties have represented to the Court that they have STIPULATED to

21

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude evidence of collateral sources for payment of

22

medical expenses and lost compensation.

23
24
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE AND PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS
IN LIMINE - 2

1
2
3
4

11. That Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude evidence of Mr. Whitford’s medical
expenses and the amount thereof is DENIED.
12. That Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to exclude argument that general damages should
be based on the amount of Mr. Whitford’s medical expenses is DENIED.

5
6 The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.
7
8

Dated April 12, 2012.

9
10
11
12

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE AND PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS
IN LIMINE - 3