ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

DAVID N. HURD, District Judge.

A jury trial in this matter is scheduled to begin on Monday, September 16, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in Utica, New York. The parties have moved in limine seeking rulings on the admissibility of certain matters. Dkt. Nos. 549-57, 564, 592, 594-96. Those motions have been fully briefed. Dkt. Nos. 573-92, 603, 606-08.

The standard governing a motion in limine is set forth in detail in this Court's recent opinion in Walker v. Schult, 365 F.Supp.3d 266, 274-75 (N.D.N.Y. 2019) and will not be repeated here. Briefly stated, however, "[e]vidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, "[t]he trial judge may reserve judgment on a motion in limine until trial to ensure the motion is considered in the proper factual context." Id.

Upon review, Century's ninth, eleventh, and twelfth motions in limine will be granted because Utica Mutual has not opposed those requests. However, upon review of the parties' other filings in light of the governing standard set forth in Walker, several of these motions must be denied without prejudice to renew at an appropriate time during the course of the trial.

Therefore, it is

ORDERED that

1. Century's omnibus motion in limine (Dkt. No. 564) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

2. Century's first motion in limine to preclude decisions from other actions is GRANTED;

3. Century's second motion in limine to preclude mediators' findings from the California Case of Cannon Electric v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co. is GRANTED;

4. Century's third motion in limine to preclude Utica from offering extrinsic evidence of an unambiguous legal contract is DENIED without prejudice to renew;

5. Century's fourth motion in limine to preclude Utica from offering testimony on issues on which it claimed privilege throughout discovery is GRANTED;

6. Century's fifth motion in limine to preclude Utica's lawyer fact witnesses from offering opinion testimony or legal opinions is DENIED without prejudice to renew;

7. Century's sixth motion in limine to preclude Utica from calling undisclosed lawyer expert witness Stefanie Walterick is DENIED without prejudice to renew;

8. Century's seventh motion in limine to preclude certain testimony of lawyer-expert Andrew Maneval is DENIED without prejudice to renew;

9. Century's eighth motion in limine to preclude cumulative expert testimony is DENIED without prejudice to renew;

10. Century's ninth motion in limine to preclude Utica from offering undisclosed expert opinions is GRANTED;

11. Century's tenth motion in limine to preclude Utica from offering testimony about treaty reinsurance that it withheld from discovery is GRANTED;

12. Century's eleventh motion in limine to preclude evidence of financial hardship is GRANTED;

13. Century's twelfth motion in limine to preclude evidence of charitable giving is GRANTED;

14. Century's thirteenth motion in limine to preclude Utica from offering into evidence designated portions of depositions taken in the California Case of Cannon Electric v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co. is GRANTED;

15. Century's motion (Dkt. No. 592) to preclude evidence of litigation reserves is GRANTED;

16. Utica Mutual's (Dkt. No. 549) motion in limine No. 1 to preclude certain evidence of disputes with other reinsurers is GRANTED;

17. Utica Mutual's (Dkt. No. 550) motion in limine No. 2 to preclude certain evidence of other insurers' interpretations is GRANTED;

18. Utica Mutual's (Dkt. No. 551) motion in limine No. 3 to preclude certain references to NICO, Berkshire Hathaway, and Warren Buffet is GRANTED;

19. Utica Mutual's (Dkt. No. 552) motion in limine No. 4 to preclude Bernd Heinze from testifying about certain legal issues is DENIED without prejudice to renew;

20. Utica Mutual's (Dkt. No. 553) motion in limine No. 5 to preclude evidence about alleged conditions precedent to the 1975 contract is DENIED without prejudice to renew;

21. Utica Mutual's (Dkt. No. 554) motion in limine No. 6 to preclude evidence about R&Q's alleged responsibility for the 1975 agreement is GRANTED;

22. Utica Mutual's (Dkt. No. 555) motion in limine No. 7 to preclude evidence about whether Utica needed to obtain consent to the defense endorsement is DENIED without prejudice to renew;

23. Utica Mutual's (Dkt. No. 556) motion in limine No. 8 to preclude Century from using the phrase "two sets of books" is DENIED without prejudice to renew; and

24. Utica Mutual's (Dkt. No. 557) motion in limine No. 9 to preclude evidence about the alleged lack of certain aggregate limits is DENIED without prejudice to renew.

IT IS SO ORDERED.