Astro Technology, Inc. (“Astro”) and its president David Brower claim to have developed a proprietary method of using fiber optic technology to gather data from inside solid rocket motors. In 2000, Astro formally entered into a business relationship with defense and aerospace contractor ATK Thiokol, Inc.(“Thiokol”) 1 to explore the usefulness of Astro’s technology in Thiokol’s rocket motors. As part of their relationship, Astro and Thiokol signed a Proprietary Information Agreement (“PIA”) governing the use, exchange, and confidentiality of them ideas.

Thereafter, the relationship deteriorated and in 2003 Astro sued Thiokol, alleging twelve causes of action including breach of the PIA, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. On March 24, 2004, the district court dismissed three of Astro’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6). On September 28, 2005, the district court granted Thiokol’s motion for summary judgment on Astro’s remaining claims, finding that Astro failed to present evidence that raised a genuine issue of material fact. See FedR.Civ.P. 56(c). The court also excluded portions of the report submitted by one of Astro’s expert witnesses, and limited David Brower’s testimony to the subject of damages.

Astro appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment and its order limiting and excluding Astro’s expert witnesses. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and having heard oral argument, we conclude that the district court committed no reversible error, and we AFFIRM essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. AFFIRMED.

Furthermore, Astro’s motion for sanctions, costs, and fees is DENIED.