Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States for Use and Benefit of Mid State Construction Company, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.

United States District Court, Fifth Circuit

November 18, 2013

UNITED STATES FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF MID STATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; and MID STATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA; U.S. COATING SPECIALTIES & SUPPLIES, LLC; and EARL WASHINGTON, Defendants.

ORDER

DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on plaintiff Mid State Construction Company, Inc. ("Mid State")'s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence from Travelers Regarding the Payment Dispute Between Mid State and U.S. Coating (docket entry 157). Having carefully considered the motion and response, the memoranda and applicable law, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:

Mid State seeks an order barring Travelers from offering any evidence or testimony that attempts to describe or otherwise characterize the payment dispute between Mid State and U.S. Coating. On April 30, 2013, Mid State took a 30(b)(6) deposition of Roberta Ziv-Goldstein, Travelers' designee. The 30(b)(6) notice served by Mid State included a request for information concerning, inter alia, Travelers' investigations into whether U.S. Coating properly paid Mid State, and the circumstances regarding U.S. Coating's and Mid State's payment dispute. Mid State argues that because Travelers failed to fully respond to these requests through Ms. Ziv-Goldstein, and failed to offer a substitute witness to do so, it should be barred from presenting such evidence at trial beyond Ms. Ziv-Goldstein's existing testimony.

Travelers responds that Ms. Ziv-Goldstein did respond to the questions put to her regarding U.S. Coating's and Mid State's payment dispute. Furthermore, she was the person who conducted the investigation for Travelers. The question is whether her answers were deficient and, if so, whether Travelers can offer supplemental answers at trial. This can only be resolved on a question-byquestion basis, and the Court will have to address the issue at trial. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Mid State Construction Company, Inc.'s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence from Travelers Regarding the Payment Dispute Between Mid State and U.S. Coating (docket entry 157) is DENIED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.