Chaotic Labz Inc v. SDC Nutrition Inc

Filing 57

ORDER partly granting and partly denying 53 Motion in limine as specified in this Order. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 2/26/2020. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
CHAOTIC LABZ, INC.

v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 4:18-cv-75-DPM

SDC NUTRITION, INC.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

SDC Nutrition's opposed motion in limine, NQ 53, is partly granted
and partly denied as specified.
• Reaction's Alleged Other Wrongs

Excluded. Bedoloto' s 483s testimony is irrelevant. FED. R. EVID.
401. This case is not about prohormones. Reaction's use of DHEA in
this case is undisputed. Testimony from Bedoloto or Wheat about
Reaction's use of DHEA for other customers, and alleged patent
infringement in unrelated products, risks mini-trials, which would
confuse and distract from the disputed issues here. FED. R. EVID. 403.
• Lay Testimony About Spoliation

Excluded. FED. R. EVID. 701. Neither Wheat nor Palumbo have
been designated as experts.

Palumbo does much troubleshooting,

including on sealing issues, but he did not work on Chaotic' s disputed
seals in this case. NQ 39-3 at 11-12. Wheat likewise has experience with
these issues, but not with seals on Chaotic's products. Like SDC, the
Court is uncertain about what testimony Chaotic might plan to offer on

regulatory compliance. This is certainly not an area for any lay witness.
With input from counsel, the Court will instruct the jury about all the
relevant law.
• Settlement Offers and Agreements and Settled Claims

Granted as to dismissed claims and any offers during litigation.
Denied as to pre-suit discussions in the course of the parties' ongoing
dealings.

They' re admissible on the warranty claims - arguable

assurances about making things right. If there was some hard pre-suit
settlement offer, after the parties had ended their relationship, the
Court would reconsider on that narrow matter.

It's up to SDC to

re-ventilate that possibility with particulars outside the jury's presence.
• Criminal History

Granted

as

to

Marszalek' s

2002

conviction

1n

case

No. 2:02-cr-249-WLS (W.D. Pa. 2002). The unfair prejudice of being part
of a conspiracy to distribute ecstasy, and launder drug money, clearly
outweighs the probative value of the conviction on the issues in this
case.

FED.

R. EVID.

403. Granted on references to Williams' s

prohormone-related conviction because he will not testify.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-2-