District Judge Mae A. D’Agostino
The parties’ dispute is scheduled for trial. The court denied their motions in limine to preclude evidence. Discussing the burdens imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and (e), the court barred plaintiffs’ introduction of any documents concerning work performed by Recony Construction and or Mullady, not previously disclosed during discovery. Discussing Federal Rule of Evidence 1006, it denied defendants’ preclusion of a “revised itemization of damages” spreadsheet, which plaintiffs sought to introduce as demonstrative evidence and an accounting of how damages were calculated. The court concluded that the issue of whether the spreadsheet summarized records too voluminousor summarized testimony and other evidenceto be presented to the jury, was to be decided at trial. Denying plaintiffs’ motion to preclude, as insufficiently reliable, testimony by JMC’s expert Hoffman. Discussing Rule 702, the court found factual issues for the jury to resolve as to alteration of plaintiffs’ home and destruction of evidence. Citing Great N. Ins. v. Power Cooling, the court observed that if it were to accept plaintiffs’ argument as to the reliability of Hoffman’s opinions, that limitation could also result in their own experts’ preclusion.
