Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04927/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04927-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLTON SULLINS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

EXXON/MOBIL CORPORATION, 

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04927 CW

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN

LIMINE

As discussed at the final pre-trial conference, held on June

29, 2010, the Court rules on the parties’ motions in limine as

follows:

Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine

1. Preclude Defendant from claiming it is not a responsible

party.

DENIED. The term “responsible party” is not relevant to a

continuing nuisance claim. Defendant may present admissible

evidence that it did not cause the contamination on the

property. 

2. Preclude Defendant from claiming it is a secondary responsible

party or that Plaintiffs are the primary responsible party.

DENIED. Again, “responsible party” is not relevant to the

continuing nuisance claim. Defendant may present admissible

evidence that it was not primarily responsible for causing the

contamination.

3. Preclude Defendant from referring to or introducing any

document or witness not disclosed pursuant to Rule 26 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 4:08-cv-04927-CW Document 75 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

DENIED AS MOOT. The parties agreed they will meet and confer

regarding their mutual motions to exclude evidence and

witnesses based on Rule 26.

Defendant’s Motions in Limine

1. Exclude correspondence from Alameda County and the City of

Livermore. 

GRANTED, in part. If Plaintiffs can produce a witness or

witnesses with non-hearsay, personal knowledge of the studies

upon which the factual findings in the letters are based, they

would be admitted. However, the ultimate finding of who

caused the contamination is for the jury to decide.

2. (a) Exclude all references to damages that are unavailable for

a continuing nuisance claim. 

(b) Exclude damages not included in Plaintiffs’ Rule 26

disclosures.

(a) GRANTED.

Excluded are: costs incurred more than three years prior

to filing the complaint; diminution in property value;

future damages; and consequential and compensatory

damages.

Allowable damages are: costs of remediation incurred

during the three years prior to the filing of the

complaint; loss of use and loss of profits during the

three years prior to filing the complaint. In addition,

injunctive relief to abate the contamination may be

ordered by the Court.

(b) DENIED as moot. The parties shall meet and confer to

attempt to agree. 

3. Exclude all references to Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s

financial conditions.

GRANTED, in part. Plaintiffs are precluded from mentioning or

introducing evidence about Defendant’s financial condition. 

Plaintiffs are precluded from mentioning their financial

condition in their opening statement. Evidence of Plaintiffs’

financial condition will be admitted only if it is relevant to

a dispute in issue.

4. Exclude inflammatory language about Defendant or the oil

industry.

GRANTED.

5. Exclude mention of meetings between Defendant’s

representatives and Plaintiffs and the content of those

Case 4:08-cv-04927-CW Document 75 Filed 07/02/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

meetings.

GRANTED, unless there is evidence of a statement against

interest or an admission of a party opponent.

6. Exclude evidence of the 85% Underground Storage Tank

allocation by the State Water Resources Control Board

GRANTED, in part. This evidence is admissible only if the

individual who made the 85% determination testifies as to the

factual findings that resulted in that decision.

7. Preclude Plaintiffs from referring to the Underground Storage

Tanks as “Mobile’s Tanks” or “ExxonMobil’s Tanks.”

GRANTED, in part. After admissible evidence that one or more

of the underground tanks belonged to Mobil, Plaintiffs may

refer to them as Mobil’s tanks. Otherwise, the tanks may be

referred to by letters.

8. Exclude Rita Sullins’ testimony regarding events that occurred

before she was involved with the property.

DENIED. However, Rita Sullins may only testify to facts that

are non-hearsay and within her personal knowledge.

9. Exclude declaration of Michael Comer.

GRANTED. There is no hearsay exception that applies to this

declaration.

10. Exclude all testimony and statements in documents suggesting

that the underground storage tanks leaked prior to 1972.

DENIED. Witnesses may testify to information that is nonhearsay and is within their personal knowledge. 

11. Limit Plaintiffs’ expert witness Ray Kablanow’s testimony to

the scope of his expert report.

GRANTED, in part. Dr. Kablanow’s testimony as an expert

witness is limited to the opinions expressed in his expert

report. As a percipient witness, Dr. Kablanow may testify to

information that is within his personal knowledge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-04927-CW Document 75 Filed 07/02/10 Page 3 of 3