Lizotte v. Praxair, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Washington
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LI-MINE
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
I.INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on two motions: defendant Praxair’s motion to strike a report prepared by Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. (Dkt.# 51) and plaintiffs motion in limine to admit the report (Dkt.# 55). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants defendant’s motion to strike and denies plaintiffs motion in limine. 1
II.BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was driving a truck for Pacific CA Systems, Inc. (“Pacific”), a trucking company that had a contract to haul a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bourjaily v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Luce v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Karen Sue Morris v. State of California Ventura County Municipal Court Attorney General of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Phillips v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- United States v. Warren S. ChangCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Durham v. County of MauiDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2011
- Pernix Ir. Pain Dac v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd.District Court, D. Delaware · 2018
- Alaska Air Group Inc v. Anthem IncDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2024
- Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. v. Anthem IncDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2024
- JetBlue Airways Corporation v. Anthem IncDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2024