Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-01610/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-01610-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal-Breach of Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

OTTO DENTAL SUPPLY, INC. PLAINTIFF

V. 4:06CV01610-WRW

KERR CORPORATION DEFENDANT

ORDER

1. Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Ralph Scott (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED.

2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 58) is DENIED.

3. Defendant’s Motion in Limine re Fraud (Doc. No. 59) is DENIED, since it 

appears to me that this is a motion to dismiss a claim, rather than a motion in limine.

4. Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 61) is DENIED as to Sections 2, 3, 

and 4. There is no ruling on Section 1, at this time, because I don’t understand the objection.

5. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 64) is GRANTED in part and DENIED 

in part. Section 1 is denied. Section 2 is granted, unless a proper foundation is laid. Section 3 is

denied as moot, based on Defendant’s response. Section 4 is taken under advisement -- if

Defendant has other grounds, it must immediately disclose them to Plaintiff. Regarding Section 5,

I intend to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law regarding expert testimony. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23d day of April, 2008.

/s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.____________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-01610-BRW Document 74 Filed 04/23/08 Page 1 of 1