Free Order on Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

SEP-21-05 D3:iZ-IPM FIQOM-IJSDS SODIST Ptrlvt +ElB55TEU32 T-lam P llli2/{103 F-sas
I
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
13
I4 STUART J. REILLY, CASE NO. CIV 02-2218-Pl··lX—BTM
I5 Plaintiff, ORDER
16 V-
17
18 CHARLES M. BREWER. LTD. PROFIT
SHARING PLAN AND TRUST, a
19 retirement plan; CHARLES M. BREWER,
LTD- RESTATED PENSION PLAN, a
20 retirement plan; and CHARLES M.
BREWER,
21 Defendants.
22
23 The Court has before it several motions irn limine. The Court has consid ered the papers
21 and believes no oral argument is necessary. The Court rules as follows:
25 1. Defendants' motion to preclude plaintifffrom introducing experttestimony from Terry
26 Dake is granted in part and denied in part. Dake may not provide an expert opinion under
27 Fed. R. Evid. 702. However, he may offer testimony as to factual matters. Plaintiff may seek
28 reconsideration of this order if, within 20 days of the filing of this order, plaintiff serves on
1 ozcvzzta
C se 2:O2—cv-O2218—BTM—LSP Document 209 Filed O9/22/2005 Page1 of2

SEP-Zl-U5 uaelarlll FR0ll-Lislls s0¤lsT FLFIVE +El§55TEG32 T-lEli P uns/ilila F-its
1 defendants the complete and full disclosure required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) and`
2 simultaneously files a motion for reconsideration with the disclosure attached.
3 2. Defendants’ motion to preclude plaintiff from introducing expert testimony from
4 Thomas E. Shardlow, Esq., is denied without prejudice to consideration at the time of the
5 pretrial conference. The Court will not permit expert legal testimony as to legal conclusions
6 the Court is required to make. Q2; Snap Drape, inc. v. Comm’r, 98 F.3d 194, 198 (5* Cir.
7 1995). The Court desires a more legible copy of Mr. Shardlow's report and will reconsiderthe
8 issue at the time of the pretrial conference.
9 3. Defendants motion to preclude theztestimony of Moira Green is denied without I
10 prejudice to reconsideration at the time of tlhe pretrial conference. The Court has an
11 insufiicent record before it to decide the issue.
12 4. Defendants’ motion to preclude evidence and arguments related to the dismissed
13 claims asserted by plaintiff on behalf ofthe plan is denied without prejudice. Defendants may
14 seek reconsideration at the pretrial conference addressing the arguments raised in plaintlff's
15 response.
16 5. Except as set forth in paragraph #1 above, any motions for reconsideration or other
17 motions in limine shall be filed and served ino later than two weeks before the pretrial
18 conference. Any opposition thereto shall be filed and served no later than one week before
19 the pretrial conference. Motions in iimine and oppositions shall be limited to 5 pages.
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 . {
22 Dated:
23 HONORABLE BARRY_TE_D MOSKOWITZ
24 United States District Judge
25 cc: All Parties and Counsel of Record
26
27
28
2 ozcvzzia
C se 2:O2—cv-O2218—BTM—LSP Document 209 Filed O9/22/2005 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 209

Filed 09/22/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 209

Filed 09/22/2005

Page 2 of 2