Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04—cv—01282-JJF Document 196 Filed 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OE DELAWARE
AES PUERTO RICO, L.P., ;
Plaintiff, E
v. ; Civil Action No. 04-1282-JJF
ALSTOM POWER, INC., i
Defendants. Z
ORDER
WHEREAS, Defendant has filed several Motions In Limine
raising nine evidentiary matters (D.I. 152), as well as a
Supplemental Brief In Support Of Its Motion In Limine (D.I. I70)
relating to the first Motion, which where discussed in Open Court
on October I6, 2006 and October I7, 2006;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Defendant’s First Motion, seeking the exclusion of evidence
of late—produced documents and unidentified witnesses, is DENIED
except as to Plaintiff’s Exhibits 207, 208 and 209. Moreover,
the referenced witnesses may not give technical testimony about
equipment.
Defendant’s Second Motion, seeking the exclusion from
evidence of expert testimony not included in Plaintiff's expert
reports, is DENIED.
Defendant’s Third Motion, seeking the exclusion from
evidence of any reference to Liberty Mutual Insurance Company or
the Performance Bond it issued, is DENIED.

Case 1:04—cv—01282-JJF Document 196 Filed 10/17/2006 Page 2 of 2
Defendant’s Fourth Motion, seeking the exclusion from
evidence of the Joint Defense Agreement proffered by Plaintiff as
a proposed exhibit, is GRANTED, with leave for Plaintiff to make
specific applications.
Defendant’s Fifth Motion, seeking the exclusion of William
Van Hooser's deposition as direct evidence, is GRANTED and Mr.
Van Hooser is to testify live.
Defendant’s Sixth Motion, seeking the exclusion of evidence
or oral statements allegedly supporting Plaintiff’s “equitable
estoppel" defense, is taken under advisement. The parties are
granted leave to submit arguments on this issue.
Defendant’s Seventh Motion, seeking the exclusion of
evidence of alleged oral modifications of operational manuals by
non—party employees, is GRANTED, with leave for Plaintiff to make
specific applications.
Defendant’s Eighth Motion, seeking the exclusion of evidence
of, or reference to, unrelated and inapplicable warranties, is
DENIED.
Defendant’s Ninth Motion, seeking the exclusion of
untrustworthy exhibits, is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Exhibits 68,
131, 140 and 179.
. . { y r~
OctoberJ_JL, 2006 lj7¢ < rf CLaV-~7k
UNIUED S&ATE§ DISTRICT JUDGE