Salt Lake City Corporation et al v. ERM WEST et al, No. 2:2011cv01174 - Document 554 (D. Utah 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order granting in part and denying in part 416 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 427 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 2/5/16. (jlw)

Download PDF
Salt Lake City Corporation et al v. ERM WEST et al Doc. 554 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation; BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Maryland corporation; and CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PAROL EVIDENCE LEADING UP TO THE 2006 CHANGE ORDER Plaintiffs, v. ERM-WEST, INC., a California corporation; COMPASS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; and WRS INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT, INC., a North Carolina corporation, d/b/a WRSCOMPASS, INC., Case No. 2:11-CV-1174 TS District Judge Ted Stewart Defendants. This matter is before the Court on Defendants Compass Environmental, Inc. (“Compass”) and WRS Infrastructure’s (“WRS”) Motion in Limine to Exclude Parol Evidence Leading up to the 2006 Change Order. Defendant ERM-West, Inc. (“ERM”) has filed its own Motion, joining in the arguments of Compass and WRS. Defendants seek an order prohibiting Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence regarding the discussion, correspondence, and negotiations leading up to the 2006 change order. Defendants argue that such evidence is barred by the parol evidence rule. The parol evidence “rule operates, in the absence of invalidating causes such as fraud or illegality, to exclude evidence of prior or contemporaneous conversations, representations, or 1 Dockets.Justia.com statements offered for the purpose of varying or adding to the terms of an integrated contract.” 1 The Utah Supreme Court has held that this rule “has a very narrow application.” 2 To the extent that Plaintiffs seek admission of parol evidence to vary or add to the terms of the 2006 change order, such evidence will be excluded. However, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek admission of such evidence for other purposes, it will be admitted. Objections to specific evidence and testimony may be made at trial. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions in Limine to Exclude Parol Evidence Leading up to the 2006 Change Order (Docket Nos. 416 and 427) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. DATED this 5th day of February, 2016. BY THE COURT: Ted Stewart United States District Judge 1 Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass’n, 907 P.2d 264, 268 (Utah 1995). 2 Union Bank v. Swenson, 707 P.2d 663, 665 (Utah 1985). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.