Kadant Johnson, Inc v. D'Amico et al

Filing 613

ORDER denying 534 Motion in Limine to exclude all evidence related to defendants' business relationship with Armstrong. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 06/14/2012. (Reference: 10-2869)(kac, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KADANT JOHNSON INC.
vs.
JOSEPH V. D’AMICO, LOUISIANA
STEAM EQUIPMENT, LLC and
UTILITIES OPTIMIZATION
GROUP, LLC

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 10-2869
JUDGE: HELEN G. BERRIGAN
SECTION ‘C’
MAG. JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.

ORDER AND REASONS1
Before this Court is a Motion in Limine To Exclude All Evidence Related to Defendants’
Business Relationship with Armstrong. (Rec.Doc.534). Having considered the memoranda of
counsel, the record, and applicable law, the Court DENIES the motion for the following reasons.

I. Background
Plaintiff Kadant Johnson Inc (“Kadant” or “Plaintiff”) seeks to introduce evidence that
Defendants, Joseph v. D’Amico (“D’Amico”), Louisiana Steam Equipment, LLC (“LSE”), LSE
Systems, Inc. (“LSE Systems”), Utility Construction Group, Inc. And Utilities Optimization
Group, LLC (“UO Group”) (collectively, “Defendants”), “violated their Armstrong
representative agreement by putting parts on Armstrong assemblies that were not Armstrong
parts.” (Rec.Doc. 511, p. 34, para. 169). Kadant posits that this information will show “evidence
of prior bad acts.” Id. Defendants argue that this is not admissible evidence under Federal
Rules of Evidence 403 and 404. (Rec.Doc.534-1 at 2).

1

Rebekka Veith, a second-year student at Tulane University Law School, contributed to
the research and preparation of this order.

II. Law and Analysis
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 states that “evidence may be excluded if its probative value
is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation
of cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Ev. 403. Defendants maintain that if Kadant is permitted to
introduce evidence of defendants’ relationship with Armstrong, a “wasteful” mini-trial will occur
because Defendants will have to put on countervailing evidence. (Rec.Doc 534-1 at 3).
However, many of the claims which defendant cites as burdens on the Court have now been
settled (Rec.Doc.596), and evidence of Defendants’ business relationship with Armstrong would
not cause such “undue delay” or “waste of time” as to merit a motion to exclude it under Rule
403.
Next , Defendants argue that evidence of their relationship with Armstrong should be
excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 404, which states, in relevant part, that “[e]vidence of
other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show
action in conformity” with the person’s character. Fed.R.Ev. 404(b). It is true that Kadant
intends to introduce evidence of Defendants’ relationship with Armstrong in order to show
Defendants’ character through proof of “prior bad acts.” (Rec..Doc. 511, p. 34, para. 169). But
Defendants have claimed defamation (Rec.Doc.75 at 3), and thus they have placed their
character “in issue.” See, e.g., U.S. v. McGee, 1994 WL 395111, *6, note 9 (5th Cir. 1994) (not
reported) (using a defamation action as an example of an action in which “character is actually in
issue”). Because they are claiming defamation, defendants’ character is “an essential element” of
one of their claims, and thus under Federal Rule of Evidence 405(b), proof of “specific
instances” of Defendants’ conduct may be introduced. Fed.R.Evid. 405(b) (“When a person’s

character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or
trait may also be proved by relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.”).

III. Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Related to
Defendants’ Business Relationship With Armstrong is DENIED. (Rec.Doc.534).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of June, 2012.

______________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE