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

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