-1- PETER J. HINTON, State Bar No. 36400 PETER W. ALFERT ...

PETER J. HINTON, State Bar No. 36400
PETER W. ALFERT, State Bar No. 83139
ELISE R. SANGUINETTI, State Bar No. 191389
Hinton & Alfert
A Professional Corporation
1646 North California Blvd., Suite 600
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Telephone: (925) 932-6006
Facsimile: (925) 932-3412
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PATRICK REILLY and PATSY
REILLY,
v.
Plaintiffs,
THE NEWARK GROUP, INC.
d/b/a
NEWARK SIERRA PAPERBOARD
CORP., and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
No.
C99-20881 JW PVT
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE
NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF
LITIGATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFF
AND MARION RASMUSSEN
RESULTING FROM THE DECEMBER
24, 1998 INCIDENT
Date: November 19, 2002
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Courtroom 8
Trial Date: December 3, 2002
The Honorable James Ware
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs PATRICK REILLY and PATSEY REILLY hereby
submit the following motion in limine for an order that
defendant, defense counsel and all other witnesses, be
admonished not to testify, refer to, interrogate any witness
concerning, attempt to suggest to this Court or jury, or comment
the fact that Marion L. "Whitey" Rasmussen, an employee of
Newark on the date of the subject accident, filed a civil action
-1-
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF No. C99-20881 JW
PVT
LITIGATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND MARION RASMUSSEN RESULTING
FROM THE DECEMBER 24, 1998 INCIDENT

in California State Court against plaintiffs herein. That
action was subsequently settled in 2000.
II. FACTUAL SUMMARY
This is an action for personal injuries and loss of
consortium arising out of an incident in which Patrick Reilly
was injured at Newark Sierra Paperboard's Stockton facility in
the afternoon of December 24, 1998. At the time he was injured,
Patrick Reilly was performing a valve inspection/repair. When
the bonnet of the main steam stop valve on Boiler #2 in the
Newark Sierra Paperboard Powerhouse was opened by Mr. Reilly,
pressurized condensate was released, and both Reilly and Newark
Sierra Paperboard’s utility engineer, Marion Rasmussen, were
injured. Reilly has sued Newark Sierra Paperboard for
negligence and loss of consortium.
On December 24, 1998, Reilly was attempting to remove
the bonnet from a valve for which he was hired to inspect and
repair for defendant Newark. Throughout the day, Mr. Rasmussen
provided assistance to Reilly by obtaining various tools for him
to use and eventually in the final efforts to remove the bonnet.
When Mr. Rasmussen was informed that steam was still escaping
from the valve in the late afternoon, Mr. Rasmussen inspected
the valve and its pipes, vents and drains and in so doing,
opened and closed vents and drains. The steam stopped and
plaintiff again began efforts to remove the bonnet from the
valve body. Plaintiff and his assistant put up a chain fall to
assist in pulling the lid to the side. Mr. Rasmussen relocated
the position of the chain fall from above the bonnet and as
Reilly removed the last bolt from the bonnet, Mr. Rasmussen
applied pressure from above on the chain fall, essentially
lifting the bonnet up as the bolt was removed. When the
pressurized steam and water erupted from the valve, both Reilly
and Mr. Rasmussen suffered severe injuries.
Mr. Rasmussen and his wife, Dorothy, filed an action
on April 22, 1999 in the San Joaquin County Superior Court, Case
No. CV 007503, against Patrick Reilly and Process Control
Maintenance. That case was settled in 2000.
III. ARGUMENTS
Fed.Rules Evid. 408 states, in pertinent part:
prove
Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to
furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to
accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or
attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as
to either validity or amount, is not admissible to
-2-
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF No. C99-20881 JW
PVT
LITIGATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND MARION RASMUSSEN RESULTING
FROM THE DECEMBER 24, 1998 INCIDENT

amount.
liability for or invalidity of the claim or its
Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise
negotiations is likewise not admissible.
Under Fed.Rules Evid. 401, relevant evidence is
evidence having any tendency to make the existence
of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less
probable than it would be without the evidence.
(Emphasis added).
Fed.Rules Evid. 403 states:
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,
or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue
delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of
cumulative evidence.
Fed.Rules Evid. 402 states that evidence that is not
relevant is not admissible.
The fact that Rasmussen filed litigation against
Reilly and Process Control Maintenance and subsequently settled
that action is not relevant nor admissible in this action and
any reference to it would be highly prejudicial to plaintiffs.
Any reference to that litigation or settlement should be
excluded as irrelevant and not admissible.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully
request an order granting plaintiffs' motion in limine no. 1.
Date: October 28, 2002 HINTON & ALFERT
By:____________________________
PETER W. ALFERT, ESQ.
ELISE R. SANGUINETTI, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
-3-
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF No. C99-20881 JW
PVT
LITIGATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND MARION RASMUSSEN RESULTING
FROM THE DECEMBER 24, 1998 INCIDENT