LONG v. FAIRBANK FARMS INC et al

Filing 352

ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE RE: GOPAC FSIS Documents denying without prejudice 281 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relative to FSIS/GOPAC Documents By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MARGARET LONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
FAIRBANK FARMS
RECONSTRUCTION CORP.,
Defendant & Third-Party
Plaintiff,
v.
GREATER OMAHA PACKING
COMPANY, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 1:09-cv-592-GZS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE
RE: GOPAC FSIS Documents
Before the Court is the Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relative to FSIS/GOPAC
Documents (Docket # 281).

The Motion is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to

GOPAC reasserting any of its objections at the appropriate time during trial.1
Via this Motion, GOPAC seeks a pre-trial exclusion of evidence related to the
evaluations undertaken by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and
Inspection Service (“FSIS”) arguing that the evidence is irrelevant and has not been properly
authenticated.
With respect to the authentication argument, Fairbank’s failure to timely utilize the Local
Rule 44 process for self-authentication is not a basis for pre-trial exclusion. In response to this
motion, Fairbank indicates it is prepared to authenticate the documents in questions. GOPAC is,

1

To the extent that GOPAC filed an addendum to this Motion (Docket # 315), the Court intends to rule on
deposition designation objections via a separate order.

1 

of course, free to reassert any authenticity objection at trial should it believe Fairbank is seeking
to admit documents that are not properly authenticated.
Similarly, based on Fairbank’s response, the Court cannot say these documents are
irrelevant or otherwise subject to wholesale exclusion under Rule 403. Rather, on the available
record, it appears that the documents in question are relevant. GOPAC is free to reassert these
objections at trial and the Court will have a more complete record on which to consider any Rule
403 argument.
Finally, GOPAC’s Addendum seeks to exclude the introduction of evidence of its
potential negligence or failure to meet relevant standards of care because GOPAC asserts that
such evidence is not relevant to the issue of whether or not GOPAC was the source of the E. coli
contamination at issue in this case. To the extent that evidence of GOPAC’s negligence and
failure to meet relevant standards of care relates to GOPAC’s obligations under the Fairbank
Guarantee, such evidence is clearly relevant to the jury’s determination of whether GOPAC
breached the Fairbank Guarantee, and, therefore, the Court sees no basis for exclusion of this
evidence before trial.
Nothing in this ruling prevents the parties from reaching an agreement that neither side
will seek to admit all or some FSIS documents, as suggested in Fairbank’s Response. However,
in the absence of an agreement, at trial, each side may move to admit FSIS documents and the
opposing side is free to then argue any properly preserved objection to that exhibit. If the Court
overrules those objections, the document will be admitted and will not be sealed.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 25th day of October, 2011.

2