Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_91-cv-01764/USCOURTS-azd-2_91-cv-01764-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Pinal Creek Group, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Newmont Mining Corp., et al., 

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-91-1764-PHX-DAE (LOA)

ORDER

 This matter arises on numerous motions in limine filed by the parties to this

litigation in anticipation of the bench trial on Phase II of this matter. The parties have

collectively filed 19 motions in limine. (docket #s 1777, 1785, 1786, 1788, 1790, 1791, 1792,

1793, 1794, 1795, 1796, 1797, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803, and 1804). The Court will

rule on the merits of one of these motions which concerns the release of sealed information in

due course. (docket # 1796; Canadian Oxy's Motion For Access To All Court Records

Regarding Norris and Fetter) The Court will, however, deny the remainder of the motions in

limine without prejudice to objecting to the challenged evidence or witness during the Phase II

trial to the bench and will do so at this time to eliminate unnecessary briefing and expense on

the subject motions. 

ANALYSIS

This matter is being tried in several phases. The pending motions in limine pertain

to witnesses, opinions, exhibits and other evidence that may be offered in evidence during Phase

II which will be tried to the Hon. David A. Ezra, not a jury. A motion in limine is "[a] pretrial

Case 2:91-cv-01764-DAE-MEA Document 1807 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 3
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 -

request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial." Black's Law

Dictionary, 1038 (8th Ed. 2004). Motions in limine are useful because they allow for the pretrial resolution of evidentiary disputes without having to present potentially prejudicial evidence

in front of a jury. Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004 (9th Cir. 2003) (Berzon, J.,

dissenting)(citations omitted). Motions in limine "avoid the obviously futile attempt to 'unring

the bell'" once the evidence has been presented before the jury. Id. at 1005 (quoting Kelly v.

New W. Fed. Savs., 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 803, 808 (1996)). Federal Rule of

Evidence 103 authorizes a district court to make "a definitive ruling on the record admitting or

excluding evidence, either at or before trial." Fed.R.Evid. 103. "Rule 103 does not require a

court to rule on a motion in limine." CFM Communications, LLC v. Mitts Telecasting

Company, 424 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1233 (9th Cir. 2005). When presented with a pretrial motion

in limine, the trial court is forced "to decide the merits of introducing a piece of evidence

without the benefit of the context of trial." Id. (citing United States v. Marino, 200 F.3d 6, 11

(1st Cir. 1999) (recognizing that proffered evidence can be more accurately assessed in the

context of other evidence.). 

As previously stated, the Phase II issues will be tried to the bench. Thus, the

rationale underlying pretrial motions in limine — keeping potentially prejudicial information

from the jury does not apply. Judges are presumed to disregard inadmissible evidence and rely

on competent evidence. Plummer v. Western International Hotels Company, Inc., 656 F.2d 502,

505 (9th Cir. 1981)(citing E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence § 60, at 137 (2d ed. 1972)). In

view of the complexity of the issues in this case, the trial judge is better able to assess the

admissibility of evidence and witnesses in the context of the bench trial upon appropriate and

timely objection at the time of trial rather than four months or so before trial. The Court,

therefore, will deny the pending motions in limine except one without prejudice at this time.

Proceeding in this fashion will benefit, rather than prejudice, the parties because after the filing

of the detailed Final Pretrial Order and hearing opening statements, the trial judge will have

more information and understanding regarding the evidentiary issues at trial and will be better

able to rule upon the admissibility of evidence and objections at that time.

Case 2:91-cv-01764-DAE-MEA Document 1807 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following Motions in Limine are DENIED

without prejudice: docket. #s 1777, 1785, 1786, 1788, 1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1795,

1797, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall timely file Responses and

a Reply to Canadian Oxy's Motion For Access To All Court Records Regarding Norris and

Fetter etc. (docket # 1796), filed on June 23, 2006.

DATED this 26th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:91-cv-01764-DAE-MEA Document 1807 Filed 06/26/06 Page 3 of 3