SYM Technologies, Inc. v. Matrix Aviation, Inc.

Filing 57

ORDER denying 51 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 9/16/2015. (mms)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 14-CV-24442-MORENO/O’SULLIVAN

SYM TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATRIX AVIATION, INC.,
Defendant.
/
MATRIX AVIATION, INC.,
Counter-claimant,
v.
SYM TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.,
Counter-defendant.
/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Sym
Technologies, Ltd.’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence Concerning Third
Parties (DE# 51, 8/5/15). Having reviewed the motion and the defendant’s response,1 it
is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Sym
Technologies, Ltd.’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence Concerning Third
Parties (DE# 51, 8/5/15) is DENIED.

1

The plaintiff did not file a reply.

DISCUSSION
In its motion in limine, the plaintiff/counter-defendant seeks to preclude the
advancement of arguments, testimony of any kind or introduction of evidence during the
trial of this action by the defendant, Matrix Aviation, Inc. (“Matrix”), concerning what the
plaintiff/counter-defendant, Sym Technologies, Ltd. (“Sym”), describes as irrelevant
subject matter related to Matrix’s contractual relationships, disputes, and maintenance
contract issues with Petroleos Mexicanos (“Pemex”) and Pemex Procurement
International, Inc. (“PPI”). Sym maintains that the crux of the lawsuit is whether or not
the parties agreed to reduce the commissions owed by Matrix to Sym under the
Representative Agreement for the sale of two aircraft (the “Aircraft”). Sym claims that
the evidence it seeks to exclude has nothing to do with the claims between Sym and
Matrix related to the Representation Agreement and the commissions owed. Motion at
5 (DE# 51, 8/5/15).
Matrix argues in its response that the motion in limine should be denied because
Matrix’s relationships with Pemex and PPI, including the maintenance contracts issues
raised in Matrix’s Counterclaim (DE# 17) and its disputes with Pemex and PPI are
directly relevant to the counterclaims asserted by Matrix against Sym for (1) breach of
fiduciary duty (Counterclaim Count I); fraudulent misrepresentation (Counterclaim
Count II); tortious interference with current and/or prospective business relationship
(Counterclaim Count III); and 4) civil conspiracy (Counterclaim Count IV). Matrix argues
further that exclusion of the evidence would prevent Matrix from proving its claims and
damages. Response at 1-2 (DE# 56, 8/20/15). The plaintiff did not file a reply

2

memorandum countering the defendant’s arguments that the evidence relates to
Matrix’s counterclaims.
“A Motion in Limine presents a pretrial issue of admissibility of evidence that is
likely to arise at trial, and as such, the order, like any other interlocutory order, remains
subject to reconsideration by the court throughout the trial.” Stewart v. Hooters of
America, Inc., No. 8:04-cv-40T-17-MAP, 2007 WL 1752841, * 1 (M.D. Fla. June 18,
2007) (citation omitted). A motion in limine gives the trial judge notice and an
opportunity to prevent “introduction of damaging evidence which may irretrievably effect
the fairness of the trial. A court has the power to exclude evidence in limine only when
evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Id. (citing Luce v. United
States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984)).
Courts disfavor motions in limine. Id. (citation omitted). “[A]dmissibility questions
should be ruled upon as they arise at trial. Accordingly, if evidence is not clearly
admissible, evidentiary rulings must be deferred until trial to allow questions of
foundation, relevancy, and prejudice to be resolved in context.” Id. (citation
omitted)(emphasis in original). “[E]ven if nothing unexpected happens at trial, the
district judge is free, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in
limine ruling.” Luce, 469 U.S. at 41.
Sym seeks to exclude evidence regarding the relationships of the various entities
on the grounds that it is irrelevant to Sym’s claims against Matrix and that it would
potentially confuse the jury. Matrix maintains that the scope of evidence is directly
relevant to its counterclaims against Sym. Exclusion of the evidence regarding the

3

relationships between and among Sym, Matrix, Pemex and PPI, would prevent Matrix
from proving its counterclaims against Sym for breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent
misrepresentation, tortious interference and civil conspiracy. Evidence of the business
relationship that Matrix was developing with Pemex and PPI, the business relationship
between Pemex/ PPI and Sym, maintenance work performed on the aircraft by Matrix in
Mexico for Pemex, and any resulting contract between Pemex/PPI and the Symsponsored third party, is necessary for Matrix to prove the elements of its counterclaims
as well as damages.
The undersigned finds that Sym has failed to carry its high burden of showing
that the evidence it seeks to exclude is inadmissible on all potential grounds.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Sym Technologies, Ltd.’s Motion in Limine
to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence Concerning Third Parties (DE# 51, 8/5/15) is DENIED.
At trial, the plaintiff/counter-defendant may object to the particular evidence in question
and have the Court decide the issue of admissibility in the context of the trial of the
parties’ respective claims.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 16th day of
September, 2015.

JOHN J. O'SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies provided to:
United States District Judge Moreno
All counsel of record

4