to Hutt v. Maryland Casualty Co., et al., Cascade
County Cause No. DDV-18-0175
M. Sullivan, Allan M. McGarvey, Jon L. Heberling, John F.
Lacey, Ethan Aubrey Welder, Dustin Alan Richard Leftridge
Jeffrey R. Kuchel, Danielle A.R. Coffman, Gary M. Zadick,
Gerry P. Fagan, G. Patrick HagEstad, Jennifer Marie
Studebaker, Joshua Alexander Leggett, Vernon M. McFarland,
Jean Elizabeth Faure, Jason Trinity Holden, Chad E. Adams,
Katie Rose Ranta, Stephen Dolan Bell, Dan R. Larsen, Kelly
Gallinger, Charles J. Seifert, Robert J. Phillips, Emma
Laughlin Mediak, Daniel Jordan Auerbach, Leo Sean Ward,
Robert B. Pfennigs, Rick A. Regh, Mark Trevor Wilson, Murry
Warhank, Ben A. Snipes, Mark M. Kovacich, Ross Thomas
Johnson, Randy J. Cox, Zachary Aaron Franz, M. Covey Morris,
Robert J. Sullivan, Dale R. Cockrell, Vaughn A. Crawford,
Tracy H. Fowler, Martin S. King, Maxon R. Davis, Tom L.
Lewis, Keith Edward Ekstrom, William Rossbach, Kennedy C.
Ramos, Edward J. Longosz, Chad M. Knight, Anthony Michael
Nicastro, Nadia Hafeez Patrick, Kevin A. Twidwell, Jinnifer
Jeresek Mariman, Stephanie A. Hollar, James E. Roberts, Jacy
Suenram, Michael Crill (Other), Conor A. Flanigan, Fredric A.
Bremseth, Walter G. Watkins, Jason Eric Pepe, Peter A. Moir,
Mark A. Johnston, Erik H Nelson, Michael E. Wise (Attorney)
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE:
Eddy, Asbestos Claims Court Judge.
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Re:
Non-Parties, filed November 9, 2018. Maryland Casualty
Company filed its Response in Opposition on November
28, 2018, to which Hutt filed a Reply on December 7,
2018. Oral argument was not requested by the parties and was
not deemed necessary by the Court. Having reviewed the file
and being fully apprised, the Court hereby finds as follows:
Motion in Limine Re: Non-Parties is GRANTED in part and
RESERVED in part consistent with the below Rationale.
Court's Order Re: Defendant Maryland Casualty
Company's Motion For Summary Judgment And Plaintiff's
Motion For Summary Judgment, dated 1/13/19, fully
recites the factual background of this matter and will not be
reiterated herein. Relevant facts will be incorporated into
the legal analysis as necessary.
authority to rule on motions in limine "rests
in the inherent power of the court to admit or exclude
evidence so as to ensure a fair trial." Meek v.
Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 2015 MT 130, ¶9,
379 Mont. 150, 349 P.3d 493. "The purpose of a motion
in limine is to prevent the introduction of evidence
which is irrelevant, immaterial, or unfairly
prejudicial." City of Missoula v. Asbury, 265
Mont. 14, 17, 873 P.2d 936, 937 (quoting Feller v.
Fox, 237 Mont. 150, 153, 772 P.2d 842, 844).
has requested the following motions in limine, which
the Court will address in turn:
This Court should implement its rulings on the "empty
chair" defense by prohibiting argument or comment
assigning fault to a non-party, and should rule on the
content of a Rule ...