Deman Data Systems, LLC et al v. Schessel et al

Filing 647

ORDER granting 593 Motion in Limine regarding experts. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 1/14/2015. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DEMAN DATA SYSTEMS,
LLC, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-2580-T-24 EAJ

MARC S. SCHESSEL, ET AL.,
Defendants.
____________________________
MARC S. SCHESSEL, ET AL.,
Counter-Plaintiffs,
v.
DEMAN DATA SYSTEMS,
LLC, ET AL.,
Counter-Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 593)
regarding the untimely disclosed expert opinions of Ohlsson and Decker. Defendants oppose the
motion. (Doc. No. 625). The Court addressed this motion during the January 14, 2015 pretrial
conference. As explained below, the motion is granted.
I. Background
This case involves the breakdown of a business relationship. The following twelve
claims remain among the parties: (1) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, (2)
misappropriation of trade secrets, (3) enforcement of the Restrictive Covenants Agreement, (4)
civil theft, (5) tortious interference by Defendants, (6) civil conspiracy, (7) breach of paragraph 9

of the Employment Agreement (8) failure to repay promissory notes, (9) breach of loyalty, (10)
breach of the Operating Agreement, (11) unpaid wages, and (12) tortious interference by DDS
and FSS.
II. Motion in Limine
Plaintiffs move to exclude the expert opinions of Anders Ohlsson and Matthew Decker
that were disclosed after July 18, 2014. Specifically, Plaintiffs are referring to the expert
opinions generated and used in connection with evidentiary hearings that were held before the
magistrate judge regarding spoliation of evidence. The issue of spoliation of evidence arose
after the expert disclosure deadlines had passed.
Defendants respond that if Plaintiffs raise the issue of spoliation during the trial, then
Defendants should be permitted to use the expert opinions disclosed during the evidentiary
hearings that were held before the magistrate judge.
After this motion in limine and response were filed, the magistrate judge denied
Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence. (Doc. No. 637). As such, the issue of
spoliation is no longer in this case and may not be raised during the trial. Therefore, there is no
reason for Defendants to use these specific expert reports during the trial, and Defendants
acknowledged this fact during the pretrial conference. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’
motion in limine on this issue.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ motion in limine
regarding the expert opinions of Ohlsson and Decker (Doc. No. 593) is GRANTED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 14th day of January, 2015.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

2