Williams et al v. Starrag Group Holding AG et al

Filing 86

MINUTE ORDER granting in part, denying in part and deferring in part Defendants' 72 Motions in Limine. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

RICHARD AND LORIANN
WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,

9
10
11

C14-764 TSZ
v.
MINUTE ORDER
STARRAG GROUP HOLDING AG, et
al.,

12

Defendants.

13

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Defendant Dörries Scharmann Technology, GmbH’s (“DST”) motions in limine,
docket no. 72, are GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and DEFERRED in part as
follows:
(1)
Defendant DST’s first motion in limine, that “Plaintiffs’ trial
evidence should be excluded under LCR 16 and FRCP 37,” is DENIED;
(2)
Defendant DST’s second motion in limine, as to “lay witness
opinions on matters that require specialized knowledge” is DEFERRED to trial;
(3)
Defendant DST’s third motion in limine, as to “hearsay statements
from out of court declarants” is GRANTED in part and DEFERRED in part to
trial. As to testimony by Mr. Williams concerning a co-worker’s statements that
the DST Alpha Machine was defective, defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
Except as granted, defendant’s motion is DEFERRED to trial. The Court will
address hearsay objections to specific evidence or testimony, if any, at trial;

23
MINUTE ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

(4)
Defendant DST’s fourth motion in limine, that “The Boeing Incident
Report should be redacted,” is DENIED;
(5)
Defendant DST’s fifth motion in limine, that “Dr. Louis Kretschmer
should be precluded from offering any testimony as an expert witness beyond the
scope of conducting independent medical exams,” is DEFERRED to the pretrial
conference;
(6)
Defendant DST’s sixth motion in limine, as to “evidence relevant
only to plaintiffs’ dismissed claims for manufacturing defect, failure to provide
adequate warnings or instructions, negligence, or any claim against the Starrag
defendants,” is DEFERRED to the pretrial conference;
(7)
Defendant DST’s seventh motion in limine, as to “evidence or
argument that the DST Alpha 1000 M is the ‘relevant product,’ as opposed to the
metal walkway,” is GRANTED;
(8)
Defendant DST’s eighth motion in limine, as to “attempts to elicit
legal conclusions or legal argument from DST’s lay corporate witnesses,” is
GRANTED;
(9)
Defendant’ DST’s ninth motion in limine, as to “suggestions that the
jury ‘send a message’ or otherwise punish or deter DST,” is GRANTED;
(10) Defendant DST’s tenth motion in limine, as to “statements about the
costs of litigation,” is GRANTED;
(11) Defendant DST’s eleventh motion in limine, as to “argument by
counsel requesting the jurors to place themselves in the position of plaintiffs,” is
GRANTED.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record.

17
Dated this 4th day of April, 2017.
18
William M. McCool
Clerk

19
20

s/Karen Dews
Deputy Clerk

21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2