The Sherwin-Williams Company v. JB Collision Services, Inc. et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 202 Motion to exclude David McCord, granting Defendants' 207 Motion to exclude sanctions, granting plaintiff's 210 Motion to exclude Ronald J. Lewarchik from testifying outs ide the scope of his expert reports, granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 212 Motion to exclude Lewarchik from testifying pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Plaintiff has also objected to Defendants' witness list ( 244 ). That objection is OVERRULED. Defendants cannot go over their 10 hour allotment of time. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 11/16/15. (kas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. 13cv1946-LAB (WVG)
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
(DOCKET NOS. 202, 207, 210, and
212) AND OBJECTION TO
DEFENDANTS' WITNESS LIST
(DOCKET NO. 244)
JB COLLISION SERVICES, INC. Et al.,
The Court issued an order on most of the parties motions in limine, but ordered a
hearing on the last four. (Docket no. 237.) The parties appeared for a hearing on November
16, 2015. After hearing argument from the parties, the Court rules as follows:
Defendants' motion to exclude David McCord (Docket no. 202) is DENIED IN PART
AND GRANTED IN PART.
submitted more warranty claims than other shops in California, Arizona, or Nevada, so he
cannot offer an expert opinion on that subject. He may, however, opine on the other topics
for which he is offered.
McCord is not qualified to opine about why Defendants
Defendants' motion to exclude sanctions (Docket no. 207) is GRANTED. If the jurors
were to hear that the Court had found Defendants are subject to sanctions, they might be
biased against them. See, e.g., CANDY CRAFT CREATIONS, LLC, v. GARTNER., 2015
WL 6391202, at *6-7 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 22, 2015). And Defendants have agreed to stipulate to
facts surrounding their misleading discovery responses and purchase of Keystone products
during the term of the Supply Agreements. Plaintiff also remains free to introduce evidence
that Defendants initially represented that they exclusively purchased from Sherwin-Williams
during the term of the Supply Agreements, and that the representation turned out to be false.
Thus, there's no reason to risk the potential unfair prejudice presented by the sanctions
Plaintiff's motion to exclude Ronald J. Lewarchik from testifying outside the scope of
his expert reports (Docket no. 210) is GRANTED. In no circumstance can Lewarchik testify
as to his untimely opinions.
Plaintiff's motion to exclude Lewarchik from testifying pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (Docket no. 212) is DENIED IN PART AND
GRANTED IN PART. It's true that Lewarchik intended to conduct testing, and wanted to do
so, but wasn't able to before the discovery period closed. That said, Lewarchik has a lot of
experience in the paint industry, and it's not clear that testing is necessary for him to render
his opinions. Instead, lack of testing goes to the weight of the evidence. But Lewarchik shall
not testify regarding his seventh proposed opinion—that "[t]he incidence of paint related
defect problems dramatically increased with the introduction of the AWX Performance Plus
Paint system." This opinion won't help the jury. They can count claims and compare without
a Court-ordained expert.
Plaintiff has also objected to Defendants' witness list. (Docket no. 244.) That
objection is OVERRULED. Defendants cannot go over their 10 hour allotment of time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 16, 2015
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?