Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00949/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00949-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT,

a political subdivision of the

State of California,

NO. CIV. S-03-949 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

TRAYLOR BROS., INC., an 

Indiana corporation,

Defendant.

 /

AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS.

 /

Pending before the court are motions in limine in the above

captioned case. Upon review of the papers and after oral argument,

the court orders as follows:

1. El Dorado Irrigation District’s (“EID”) Motion in Limine

No. 1 is GRANTED. Traylor Brothers Inc. (“TBI”) may

tell the jury that there were three change orders prior

to February 28, 2001. Evidence as to the content of the

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 609 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

change orders will not be admitted. 

2. EID’s Motion in Limine No. 2 is DENIED.

3. EID’s Motion in Limine No. 3 is GRANTED.

4. EID’s Motion in Limine No. 4 is DENIED. 

5. EID’s Motion in Limine No. 5 is DENIED.

6. EID’s Motion in Limine No. 6 is GRANTED.

7. EID’s Motion in Limine No. 7 is DENIED.

8. EID’s Motion in Limine No. 8 is DENIED.

9. As to EID’s Motion in Limine No. 9, the court defers

decision until trial.

10. EID’s Motion in Limine No. 10 is DENIED.

11. As to EID’s Motion in Limine No. 11, the court defers

decision until trial.

12. EID’s Motion in Limine No. 12 is GRANTED.

13. EID’s Motion to Bifurcate the trial is DENIED. 

14. TBI’s motion to supplement the report of Dr. Ettema is

GRANTED. Experts of EID will also be permitted to

testify on the matter. EID shall produce its

supplemental expert report within ten (10) days.

14. TBI’s Motion in Limine No. 1 as to damages is GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part as follows:

a. As to fraud damages, TBI’s motion is GRANTED.

b. As to damages against Travelers, TBI’s motion

is GRANTED.

c. As to EID’s in-house charges related to cost

of repair, TBI’s motion is GRANTED.

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 609 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

d. As to EID’s in-house charges for past

operations and maintenance costs, TBI’s motion

is GRANTED. 

e. As to future design costs for tunnel repair,

TBI’s motion is GRANTED.

f. As to extended services damages, TBI’s motion

is DENIED.

g. As to other damages or claims not identified

in EID’s August 2005 Rule 26 disclosure, TBI’s

motion is GRANTED. 

15. As to TBI’s Motion in Limine No. 2, the court requests

additional briefing and defers decision until trial.

Specifically, the parties should address the following

question: assuming that there are defects that violate

the terms of the contract, what evidence is needed to

demonstrate the costs of repairs? The parties should

also address whether expert testimony is necessary to

tie the alleged defects to any claimed damages. The

briefs shall be limited to 25 pages per party and shall

be submitted to the court on the first day of trial. 

16. TBI’s Motion in Limine No. 3 is DENIED.

17. TBI’s Motion in Limine No. 4 is DENIED.

18. TBI’s Motion in Limine No. 5 is DENIED.

////

////

////

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 609 Filed 09/08/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

19. TBI’s Motion in Limine No. 6 is DENIED.

20. TBI’s Motion in Limine No. 7 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 7, 2006. 

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 609 Filed 09/08/06 Page 4 of 4