Pacific Steel Group v. Commercial Metals Company
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, Case No. 20-cv-07683-HSG
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION IN
LIMINE
v. Re: Dkt. No. 302 COMMERCIAL METALS COMPANY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Before the Court are Plaintiff Pacific Steel Group’s (“Pacific Steel”) motion in limine, Dkt. No. 302, and Plaintiff’s supplemental brief in support of its motion, Dkt. No. 433. The Court DENIES the motion. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a motion in limine seeking an advance ruling that certain statements by third party Danieli Corporation (“Danieli”) were made in furtherance of Danieli’s conspiracy with Commercial Metals Company (“CMC”), and thus admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). See Dkt. No. 302. CMC and its subsidiaries (“Defendants”) opposed the motion. See Dkt. No. 335. The Court heard argument on the motion at the first pretrial conference on July 30, 2024, and again at an additional pretrial …