Martensen v. Koch
Filing
340
ORDER granting 240 Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Argument Regarding Kochs Wealth or Other Lawsuits. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/26/2015. (alowe)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02411-REB-CBS
KIRBY MARTENSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM KOCH, and
DOES 1-25,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WILLIAM I. KOCH’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT
REGARDING KOCH’S WEALTH OR OTHER LAWSUITS
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Defendant William I. Koch’s Motion In Limine To
Preclude Evidence or Argument Regarding Koch’s Wealth or Other Lawsuits
[#240],1 filed September 12, 2014. I grant the motion.
Despite plaintiff’s protestations to the contrary, evidence of or references to
defendant’s wealth or his putative status as a “billionaire” plainly fail to meet the
relevancy requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 401. Plaintiff posits that such evidence is
relevant because “[o]nly a person of exceptional wealth could finance the events at Bear
Ranch” which give rise to this lawsuit. (Plf. Resp. Br. at 2 [#311], filed October 2,
2014.) If there were any doubt as to whether defendant orchestrated those events, that
1
“[#240]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
argument might bear some weight, but there is no such dispute apparent here. There is
no other conceivable way in which such evidence has any tendency to make a fact of
consequence in determining plaintiff’s false imprisonment claim more or less probable
than it would be without such evidence. FED. R. EVID. 401.
Moreover, and even if evidence of defendant’s wealth had some minimal
relevance to a fact in issue, it clearly flunks under Rule 403 – that is, any probativity is
substantially outweighed by several of the dangers cited in Rule 403. Among other
reasons for excluding evidence under Rule 403's balancing test, allowing plaintiff to
gratuitously refer to plaintiff’s financial resources plainly would create a substantial
danger of unfair prejudice. See United States v. Hall, 508 Fed. Appx. 776, 780 (10th
Cir.) (“[U]nfair prejudice’ . . . means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an
improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.”), cert. denied,
133 S.Ct. 2841 (2013). Indeed, the Tenth Circuit has held specifically that “[c]omments
on the wealth of a party have repeatedly and unequivocally been held highly prejudicial,
and often alone have warranted reversal.” Whittenburg v. Werner Enterprises Inc.,
561 F.3d 1122, 1130 (10th Cir. 2009). Any such evidence is properly excluded in limine.
Defendant also seeks to preclude in limine any reference by plaintiff to prior
lawsuits filed by defendant against others or any characterization of defendant as a
“professional litigator.” “Prior lawsuits may be deemed to be other acts, within the
meaning of Rule 404(b).” Van Deelen v. Johnson, 2008 WL 4683022 at *2 (D. Kan.
Oct. 22, 2008).
Rule 404(b) prohibits the admission of evidence of “other
crimes, wrongs, or acts . . . to prove the character of a
2
person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” It
allows, however, for the admission of such evidence “for
other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake
or accident.”
United States v. Cerno, 529 F.3d 926, 936 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting FED. R. EVID.
404(b); emphasis omitted). In determining whether to admit such evidence, the court
considers whether the evidence is submitted for a proper purpose, whether it is
relevant, and whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by the dangers
outlined in Fed. R. Evid. 403. See United States v. Lazcano–Villalobos, 175 F.3d
838, 846 (10th Cir. 1999).2
None of these standards is satisfied here. Plaintiff maintains that such evidence
is submitted for a proper purpose – that is, to show motive – and relevant to establish
that defendant’s true motive for filing a lawsuit against plaintiff following his termination
was merely to intimidate him.3 In Van Deelen, the court found that evidence of the
plaintiff’s prior lawsuits was submitted for a proper purpose and relevant because it
might show “that plaintiff had a motive, plan or scheme to bring similar kinds of claims
against those who crossed him.” 2008 WL 4683022 at *3. That finding, however, was
predicated on a review of evidence that the court found sufficient to suggest that such
prior lawsuits were sufficiently similar – in terms of the factual recitations made, the
legal claims pled, and the damages sought – to both one another and the suit before the
2
If the evidence is admissible under these criteria, the court must consider further whether to give
a limiting instruction. Lazcano–Villalobos, 175 F.3d at 846.
3
I note also that there is no allegation or evidence of which this court is aware that plaintiff knew
of defendant’s prior lawsuits at the time he himself was served with papers, such that being subject to a
lawsuit by defendant somehow might be more intimidating than otherwise could be expected as a natural
result of being sued itself.
3
court to establish “more than a generic pattern of litigiousness meant to show bad
character.” Id.
Plaintiff has not even represented, much less attempted to prove up, any
similarity between this case and any prior suit in which defendant was involved.
Indeed, even plaintiff’s broad description of the parties with whom defendant has been
involved in litigation leads the court to believe that any similarity between those lawsuits
and this one is highly attenuated, at best. (See Plf. Opposition at 2 [#311], filed
October 2, 2014.)
Moreover, given this failure of proof, it seems clear that the dangers of
unnecessarily misleading the jury, confusing the issues, and unduly delaying the trial will
substantially outweigh whatever marginal probative value this evidence might have to a
proper purpose for its submission to the jury. This is truly an instance where the
sideshow threatens to overwhelm the circus. The court has no intention of wasting
valuable trial time delving into the particulars of lawsuits defendant has filed, for
example, against his brothers, business competitors and partners, sellers of rare wine
and antique weapons, or the State of Massachusetts. (See id.)
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Defendant William I. Koch’s Motion In Limine To Preclude Evidence
or Argument Regarding Koch’s Wealth or Other Lawsuits [#240], filed September
12, 2014, is GRANTED; and
2. That pending further order, all parties are PRECLUDED and PROHIBITED
from referring to or offering in evidence before the jury matters related to defendant’s
4
wealth (including references to defendant as a “billionaire” or similar characterizations)
or to prior lawsuits he has filed (including any reference to defendant as a “professional
litigator” or similar characterizations).
Dated January 26, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
5
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?