Whitesell Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation et al

Filing 695

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 672 motion for an order admitting statements made by Sky Hempy between January 1, 2004 and July 29, 2004, regarding Whirlpool's compliance with the 2002 SAA; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION

W H I T E S E L L CORPORATION, P l a in tif f , C a se No. 1:05-CV-679 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL W H I R L P O O L CORPORATION, W H IR L P O O L MEXICO S.A. de C.V., a n d JOSEPH SHARKEY, D e f e n d a n ts , and W H I R L P O O L CORPORATION, C o u n te r- P l a in tif f , v. W H I T E S E L L CORPORATION, C o u n ter -D e f e n d a n t. / M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Whitesell Corporation's motion for an o rd e r admitting statements made by Sky Hempy between January 1, 2004, and July 29, 2004,1

Plaintiff's motion actually asks the Court to admit statements made by Mr. Hempy between January 1, 2004, and February of 2005. However, because the Court has already decided that statements made by Mr. Hempy between July 29, 2004, and February of 2005, are admissible (Dkt. No. 652), the time period that is the proper focus of Plaintiff's motion is that between January 1, 2004, and July 29, 2004.

1

re g a rd in g Whirlpool's compliance with the 2002 SAA. (Dkt. No. 672.) In its order denying W h irlp o o l Corporation's motion in limine to exclude hearsay statements of Sky Hempy, the C o u rt noted that statements made by Mr. Hempy between July 29, 2004, and February of 2 0 0 5 , the time period during which Mr. Hempy was associated with Whirlpool's "Fastner S S D " project, fell within the hearsay exclusion for party admissions because during this time p e rio d "Mr. Hempy's job description enabled him to influence the fastener suppliers with w h ich Defendant did business." (Dkt. No. 652, 10/27/2009 Order 6.) Plaintiff argues that, b e c a u se John Mott attended a meeting about the Fastener SSD project in 2003, statements b y Mr. Hempy made as early as January 1, 2004, should be admitted under the hearsay e x c lu s io n in Rule 801(d)(2)(D). However, the Court is not convinced that the 2003 meeting m a rk e d the actual commencement of the Fastner SSD project or in any other way conferred o n Mr. Hempy any authority to influence the fastener suppliers with which Defendant did b u s in e ss -- authority that is required for the 801(d)(2)(D) exclusion to apply. (Dkt. No. 562, 1 0 /2 7 /2 0 0 7 Order 3-5.) Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Whitesell Corporation's motion for an o rd e r admitting statements made by Sky Hempy between January 1, 2004, and July 29, 2004, r e g a rd i n g Whirlpool's compliance with the 2002 SAA (Dkt. No. 672) is DENIED.

Dated: January 21, 2010

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2