Farmers Edge Inc. et al v. Farmobile, LLC et al

Filing 410

ORDER: The parties' Daubert motions and motions in limine (Filing Nos. 256, 270, 273, 345, 347, 350, 356, 359, 363, 365, 370, 373, and 376) are denied as moot. The parties' remaining motions in limine (Filing Nos. 343, 353, 358, and 367) are overruled at this time without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

FARMERS EDGE INC., FARMERS EDGE
(US) INC., and FARMERS EDGE (US)
LLC,

8:16CV191

Plaintiffs,
ORDER
vs.
FARMOBILE, LLC, JASON G. TATGE,
HEATH GARRETT GERLOCK, and
RANDALL THOMAS NUSS,
Defendants,
CLARKE GERLOCK,
Third-Party Plaintiff.

This matter is before the court on the parties’ motions to exclude expert
testimony, Filing Nos. 256, 270, 273, and motions in limine, Filing Nos. 343, 345, 347,
350, 353, 356, 358, 359, 363, 365, 367, 370, 373, and 376. In ruling on the parties’
motions for summary judgment, this court dismissed many of the claims in this lawsuit.
The remaining claims are set for jury trial on May 21, 2018.
The challenged experts’ testimony relates to claims that have been dismissed
and those motions will be denied as moot. Similarly, most of the motions in limine
involve evidence that is not germane to the issues remaining in the case.

Those

motions, Filing Nos. 345 (billing records), 347 (Forster testimony on tortious
interference) 350 (purported expert testimony by the individual defendants and patent
attorney Grady White that relates to trade secrets and patent issues), 356 (bad faith
character opinions that relate to trade secrets, conversion, trespass to chattels and

conspiracy claims), 359 (relating to evidence of trade secrets), 363 (relating to expert
Aaron Ault’s testimony on trade secrets), 365 (regarding expert Aaron Ault’s legal
conclusions), 370 (involving hearsay evidence of tortious interference), 373 (regarding
evidence of “plan” and a basement meeting that relate to dismissed claims), and 376
(regarding damages for trade secrets violation) will also be denied as moot.
The remaining motions are more general challenges to evidence that may have
some relevance to the remaining claims. Although the motion in limine is an important
tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and evenhanded management
of the trial proceedings, performing a gatekeeping function and sharpening the focus for
later trial proceedings, some evidentiary submissions, cannot be evaluated accurately
or sufficiently by the trial judge in such a procedural environment. Jonasson v. Lutheran
Child and Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine is
appropriate for “evidentiary submissions that clearly ought not be presented to the jury
because they clearly would be inadmissible for any purpose.” Id. In other instances, it
is necessary to defer ruling until during trial, when the trial judge can better estimate the
impact of the evidence on the jury.

Id. To the extent that a party challenges the

probative value of the evidence, an attack upon the probative sufficiency of evidence
relates not to admissibility but to the weight of the evidence and is a matter for the trier
of fact to resolve. United States v. Beasley, 102 F.3d 1440, 1451 (8th Cir. 1996).
The court is unable to evaluate the relevance of the remaining challenged
evidence in the context of a pretrial motion. The evidence may be admissible for some
purposes but not for others. The parties’ concerns may warrant a cautionary or limiting
instruction, but the court is unable to determine the ambit of such an instruction at this
2

time. The court will admit the evidence at issue only on a showing that it is relevant to
the issues in the case, and only to the extent that the relevance of the evidence
outweighs its potential to cause prejudice or confusion under Fed. R. Evid. 403. Many
of the challenges are more in the nature of an objection at trial. The court finds the
motions can be adequately resolved at trial, either in a hearing immediately prior to
commencement of the trial, as an objection with a sidebar, or with a review of the
evidence outside the presence of the jury.

Accordingly, the court finds that the

remaining motions in limine (Filing Nos. 343, 353, 358, and 367), should be overruled at
this time, without prejudice to reassertion via timely objection at trial. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that
1.

The parties’ Daubert motions and motions in limine (Filing Nos. 256, 270,

273, 345, 347, 350, 356, 359, 363, 365, 370, 373, and 376) are denied as moot.
2.

The parties’ remaining motions in limine (Filing Nos. 343, 353, 358, and

367) are overruled at this time without prejudice to reassertion.
Dated this 8th day of May, 2018.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge

3