Whittier v. Seattle Tunnel Partners et al

Filing 194

ORDER granting in part Plaintiff's 117 Omnibus Motions in Limine. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (LH)

Case 2:17-cv-00751-SAB Document 194 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8

DEVIN A. WHITTIER,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

v.
SEATTLE TUNNEL PARTNERS, et al.,

Cause No. C17-0751RSL
ORDER GRANTING IN
PART PLAINTIFF’S
OMNIBUS MOTIONS IN
LIMINE

Defendants.

12
13
14

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motions in Limine.” Dkt.

15 # 117. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties, 1
16

the Court rules as follows:

17
18
19
20

1. Collateral Source
This motion in limine is unopposed and therefore GRANTED. Evidence of other sources
of compensation for plaintiff’s injuries and wage loss is inadmissible. Evidence that plaintiff has

21
22

been retrained may be relevant to the calculation of damages, but the parties shall refrain from

23 mentioning how the vocational training was funded,
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is DENIED.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART SEATTLE
TUNNEL PARTNERS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 1

Case 2:17-cv-00751-SAB Document 194 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 3

1 2. Retention of Counsel
2

This motion in limine is unopposed and therefore GRANTED. How counsel came to be

3
4

retained, the terms of the representations, and the size and/or client base of the various law firms

5 involved in this case are not relevant and will not be admitted at trial.
6

3. Labor & Industries Citations and Subsequent Appellate Decisions

7
8

This motion in limine is unopposed and therefore GRANTED. No evidence of or

9 arguments regarding agency citations or the subsequent appeals will be permitted.
10

4. Certain Testimony from Robb Dibble

11
12

Plaintiff seeks to preclude Mr. Dibble from testifying regarding which tie wires were cut

13 by the sharp edges of the lag screws and which tie wires failed because they were improperly
14

tied. The Court takes this matter under advisement. While it is clear that Mr. Dibble is able to

15
16

identify the nature of the failure in a photograph of a particular wire, it is unclear whether he can

17 locate the failure within the context of the wall. Dkt. #120-1 at 8-10. Unless a proper foundation
18

is established, Mr. Dibble will not be permitted to testify regarding which tie wires were cut and

19
20

which untwisted.

21 5. Comparative Fault of Other Harris Rebar Entities
22

Plaintiff points out that, under Washington law, a party seeking to apportion

23
24

responsibility based on the fault of a non-party must claim the right to allocation by producing

25 evidence of the non-party’s fault. See Adcox v. Children’s Orthopedic Hosp. and Med. Ctr., 123
26

Wn.2d 15, 24-26 (1993). He then seeks a summary determination that defendants have failed to

27
28

raise a triable issue of fact regarding allocation.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART SEATTLE
TUNNEL PARTNERS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 2

Case 2:17-cv-00751-SAB Document 194 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 3

1
2

Defendants raised fault of non-parties as an affirmative defense in their answers. If, at the
close of discovery, plaintiff thought the record devoid of any evidence that a non-party was at

3
4

fault,2 he should have filed a dispositive motion by the deadline established in the case

5 management schedule.
6

6 - 9. Drug Use, Consulting Experts, Motions Practice, and Benevolent Gestures

7
8

Plaintiff filed three separate motions in limine in violation of LCR 7(d)(4). The three

9 motions totaled approximately 20 pages in violation of the page limits set forth in LCR 7(e)(5).
10

The Court has therefore not considered the overlength portion of the combined motions, which

11
12

includes motions in limine 6 through 9. Dkt. # 117 at 8-9.

13
14

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s omnibus motions in limine (Dkt. # 117) are

15
16

GRANTED in part.

17
18

Dated this 23rd day of May, 2022.

19
20
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
2

Plaintiff does not address the fact that Central Steel is a Harris Rebar entity. There is significant
evidence in the record from which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Central Steel was at least
28 partly at fault for the collapse of the wall it was building.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART SEATTLE
TUNNEL PARTNERS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE - 3

27