General

Court Resolves Discovery and Evidentiary Issues in Case Involving Construction at Arkansas State University

The Eastern District of Arkansas issued two decisions in a construction case involving work at Arkansas State University. Building Construction Enterprises, Inc. v. Meadows. BCE claims certain work was part of the contract; Meadows claims this work was not part of the contract.

Meadows submitted untimely discovery requests to BCE on June 26, 2007. BCE responded with blanket objections and claimed it did not have sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the requests for admission. Frustrated with both parties, the court ordered BCE to provide 125,000 pages of documents and to make a reasonable investigation into the matters addressed in the requests for admission. The court will decide later if the requests for admission should be deemed admitted. See 2007 WL 2570514 (E.D. Ark. 8/31/07).

BCE filed two motions in limine to exclude (1) parole evidence regarding the contract; and (2) statements by BCE’s on-site superintendents. The court denied both motions, finding the contract is ambiguous and that statements by BCE’s superintendents are admissions of BCE. See 2007 WL 2695493 (E.D. Ark. 9/10/07).