Marine Power Holding, L.L.C. v. Malibu Boats, LLC
Filing
264
ORDER AND REASONS that none of the demonstrative exhibits shall be shown to the jury until Marine Power's counsel has had an opportunity to object. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 8/4/2016.(blg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARINE POWER HOLDING, L.L.C.
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION
No. 14-912
MALIBU BOATS, LLC
SECTION I
ORDER AND REASONS
Continuing the endless saga of disagreements that has plagued this litigation , before
the Court is plaintiff Marine Power Holding, L.L.C.’s (“Marine Power”) memorandum1 objecting
to proposed demonstrative exhibits by Malibu Boats, LCC (“Malibu”). Malibu filed a response.2
Marine Power’s memorandum objects to four proposed demonstrative exhibits by Malibu.
The first is a timeline compiled by Malibu’s attorneys that reflects Malibu’s theory of the case and
characterizations of the evidence relating to the contractual relationship between the parties. 3 The
second is a document compiled by Malibu’s attorneys that notes the five documents that Malibu
believes comprise the contract at issue. 4 The third is a document that Malibu argues reflects facts
and figures in their damages expert’s reports as well as her stated objections to the methodology
employed by Marine Power’s damages expert. 5 The fourth is a statement on the standards for
valuation services published by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(“AICPA”). 6
1
R. Doc. No. 247.
R. Doc. No. 254.
3
R. Doc. No. 247-1.
4
R. Doc. No. 247-2.
5
R. Doc. No. 247-3.
6
R. Doc. No. 247-4.
2
It is unclear at this juncture (1) how Malibu proposes to use each exhibit, and (2) what
foundation Malibu seeks to lay for each exhibit. How a party seeks to use demonstrative evidence
determines the applicable legal test, the necessary foundation, and whether limiting instructions
are necessary to mitigate any prejudice. See 2 McCormick on Evidence § 214 (7th Westlaw ed.
2016). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Marine Power’s objections are premature at this
juncture because the Court will be in a better position at trial to determine whether Malibu has set
out appropriate foundations for the demonstrative evidence, what limiting instructions would be
appropriate, and whether the probative value of the demonstrative evidence will be substantially
outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, or wasting
time.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that none of the demonstrative exhibits shall be shown to the jury until
Marine Power’s counsel has had an opportunity to object.
New Orleans, Louisiana, August 4, 2016.
_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?