Fleming v. Escort Inc. et al

Filing 270

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part and reserving in part 215 First MOTION in Limine by Plaintiff filed by Hoyt A Fleming. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
HOYT A. FLEMING,
Plaintiff,

Case No. CV 09-105-S-BLW

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

ESCORT, INC. and BELTRONICS
USA, INC.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Fleming brings three motions in limine seeking to exclude evidence relating to litigation
with a Mr. Coverstone. The motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons expressed
below, the Court will grant the motion in part. The Court will exclude any evidence of (1) the
Texas litigation between Dowler and Coverstone; (2) Coverstone’s charges of misconduct of any
type against Fleming and Dowler, whether made in the Texas litigation or elsewhere; (3) the
details of the California litigation beyond the facts that Fleming filed the suit to enforce the
alleged $1 million deal between Coverstone and Fleming, and any statements under oath by
Fleming regarding the value of his patents.
ANALYSIS
Fleming’s counsel, Mike Dowler, had done legal work for Coverstone and introduced
him to Fleming to discuss purchasing Fleming’s ‘798 patent. Eventually, no money changed
hands, and both sides felt duped. Fleming thought Coverstone had agreed to pay $1 million for
the patent but then breached the agreement by failing to pay. Coverstone responded that he had
Memorandum Decision & Order - 1

the right to pull out because Fleming had misrepresented the legal strength of his patents.
Coverstone filed his own lawsuit in Texas against Dowler and his prior law firm concerning the
legal work Dowler had done for Coverstone.
Fleming now seeks to exclude (1) any evidence regarding any relationship between Mr.
Dowler and Mr. Coverstone; (2) any allegation by Coverstone of Fleming’s misconduct and the
existence of the breach of contract litigation between Fleming and Coverstone in California; and
(3) any evidence at trial regarding Coverstone’s allegations of misconduct against Dowler and
Coverstone’s litigation in Texas against Dowler and his prior law firm.
Fleming does not object to Escort raising at trial any issue concerning the negotiations
between Fleming and Coverstone regarding the value of Fleming’s patents. Nor does Fleming
object to Escort identifying and exploring Dowler’s role in those negotiations.
Certainly the negotiations between Fleming and Coverstone are relevant to value, and
Dowler was part of those negotiations. Escort has not identified Dowler as a witness, and so
cannot call him as one, but his role in the negotiations may, under appropriate circumstances, be
discussed by others, as he has recognized in his briefing on this motion.
Furthermore, the fact that Fleming sued Coverstone for the purchase price is relevant as it
is further evidence of the value Fleming placed on the patent at that time. The Court will not,
however, allow a journey down the rabbit trail of details surrounding that California litigation.
Its relevance lies in the fact that Fleming sued Coverstone alleging that a deal had been made to
sell the patent for $1 million. Also relevant are Fleming’s statements made under oath during
that litigation pertaining to the value of his patent. But Escort has made no showing that any
other evidence from the California litigation – such as Coverstone’s allegations or counterclaims

Memorandum Decision & Order - 2

– have any relevance. Accordingly, the Court will exclude any additional evidence concerning
the California litigation, although Escort is free at trial to demonstrate how additional evidence is
relevant and not precluded by Rule 403. But such a showing must be made by a proffer outside
the presence of the jury.
Turning to the Texas litigation, it concerns a dispute over legal work between Coverstone
and Dowler. Escort has made no showing that it has any relevance to valuation or any other
issue in this trial. It will be excluded. For the same reason, the Court will exclude any evidence
of Coverstone’s allegations of misconduct against Dowler or Fleming, whether made in the
Texas litigation or elsewhere. Again, no showing of relevance has been made by Escort.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Court will exclude any
evidence of (1) the Texas litigation between Dowler and Coverstone; (2) Coverstone’s charges
of misconduct of any type against Fleming and Dowler, whether made in the Texas litigation or
elsewhere; and (3) the details of the California litigation beyond the facts that Fleming filed the
suit to enforce the alleged $1 million deal between Coverstone and Fleming and any statements
under oath during that litigation by Fleming regarding the value of his patents.

DATED: June 18, 2012

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

Memorandum Decision & Order - 3