Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01387/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01387-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States C.ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MASTER PALLETIZER SYSTEMS, INC., 

a Colorado corporation, f/k/a 

Master Conveyer Corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

T.S. RAGSDALE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, ) 

a South Carolina corporation, ) 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JUL - 9 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1387 

(D.C. No. 87-B-798) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, ALDISERT,** and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

T.S. Ragsdale Company, Inc. (Ragsdale) appeals a judgment of 

the district court awarding $324,166 to Master Palletizer Systems, 

Inc. (Master) for breach of contract. Master manufactures 

automated palletizing systems used in the packaging of products 

for shipment. Ragsdale, a charcoal manufacturer, purchased such a 

system for its bagging plant in South Carolina. After a series of 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** The Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior United States 

Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third 

Circuit, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-1387 Document: 010110128852 Date Filed: 07/09/1991 Page: 1 
delays, the system was installed and declared operational. When 

Ragsdale refused to pay the final portion of the sale price, 

contending that the system continually malfunctioned and did not 

operate as specified, Master 

breach of the duty of good faith 

counterclaimed, alleging breach 

sued for breach of contract and 

and fair dealing. Ragsdale 

of contract and fraudulent 

misrepresentation and concealment. After an eight day nonjury 

trial, the district court ruled in favor of Master on all claims 

except its claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair 

dealing. Ragsdale filed a timely appeal. 

I 

Ragsdale first argues that several of the district court's 

factual findings relating to the formation and performance of its 

contract with Master are not supported by substantial evidence. 

Specifically, Ragsdale challenges the following findings: (1) the 

contract between the parties was formed on September 10, 1985, and 

its contents included a document entitled "Conditions of Sale;" 

(2) Master substantially performed its obligations under the 

contract; (3) Ragsdale was not damaged by Master's breach; and 

(4) Master did not commit fraudulent misrepresentation and/or 

concealment in connection with the contract. 

"Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary 

evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due 

regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to 

judge of the credibility of the witnesses." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

52(a). See also Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 

573 (1985) (Rule 52(a) governs appellate review of a district 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1387 Document: 010110128852 Date Filed: 07/09/1991 Page: 2 
court's findings of fact). Applying this standard to the instant 

case, we conclude that the challenged findings of the district 

court are not clearly erroneous. We have carefully examined the 

entire record and find that each of the court's factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence. 

II 

The district court sequestered all witnesses pursuant to Fed. 

R. Evid. 615, except it allowed a technical advisor to be present 

at counsels' tables during expert testimony provided the technical 

adviser would not be a witness. Ragsdale attempted to seat two 

different advisors during the testimony of Master's experts, but 

the district court refused because they were members of the same 

firms as Ragsdale's testifying experts. Ragsdale argues that in 

so ruling the district court conunitted reversible error. 

The decision to sequester a witness is left to the sound 

discretion of the trial court, and "will be reversed only upon a 

clear showing of abuse of such discretion." United States v. 

Alvarado, 647 F.2d 537, 540 (5th Cir. 1981). The court reasoned 

that allowing a person who was a witness to be the technical 

expert would "gut the effect of the exclusionary rule," II R. 5, 

which is to prevent one witness from hearing another's testimony. 

It stated that having a member of the same firm as the testifying 

expert witness be the technical advisor at the counsel table 

violated the spirit of the sequestration rule, because of the risk 

of collaboration and conununication between the two. We do not see 

prejudice to Ragsdale by the court's ruling. Its counsel was well 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1387 Document: 010110128852 Date Filed: 07/09/1991 Page: 3 
• 

versed in the intricasies and complexities of the case and effectively cross-examined Master's experts. In the particular 

circumstances of this case, we cannot hold that the district court 

abused its discretion in excluding these nontestifying experts 

from Ragsdale's counsel's table. 

III 

Finally, Ragsdale argues that the district court erred in 

refusing to accept or consider the opinions of Ragsdale's experts 

in the fields of accounting and damage analysis. The district 

court admitted the reports and opinions of Ragsdale's experts, 

although it stated that it considered them to be the reports and 

opinions of their employer, Arthur Andersen and Company. VI R. at 

113-14. We see no significance in this distinction, and we cannot 

presume from the district court's opinion, as Ragsdale argues, 

that as a result, the court gave lesser weight to the experts' 

testimony because of its ruling. An examination of the record and 

the court's opinion demonstrates only that the district court 

found Master's experts more convincing. 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1387 Document: 010110128852 Date Filed: 07/09/1991 Page: 4