Crye Precision LLC et al v. Bennettsville Printing

Filing 67

MEMORANDUM and ORDER: Plaintiffs motion 59 to strike is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 2/7/2017. (Innelli, Michael)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------x
CRYE PRECISION LLC, and
LINEWEIGHT LLC,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
15-cv-00221 (FB) (RER)
Plaintiffs,
-againstBENNETTSVILE PRINTING,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------x
Appearances:
For the Plaintiffs:
ROBERT ALLEN HOROWITZ
Greenberg Traurig LLP
MetLife Building
200 Park Avenue, 15th Floor
New York, New York 10166

For the Defendant:
CHRISTINA DOMINIC CARBONE
JONATHAN FRANK HOLLIS
Loeb & Loeb
345 Park Avenue
New York, New York10154

LAUREN BETH GRASSOTTI
Meyer Suozzi English & Klein PC
990 Stewart Avenue, Suite 300
Garden City, New York 11530
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
On June 17, 2016, Crye Precision LLC (“Crye”) and Lineweight LLC
(“Lineweight”) (collectively, “plaintiffs”) filed an amended complaint for a declaratory
judgment and for injunctive relief against Bennettsville Printing (“Bennettsville” or
“defendant”). After discovery, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”)
in which two exhibits were included: letters written by the United States Army’s

Contracting Command (“Army”) in which Crye’s prior intellectual property licensing
agreements, including the one central to this action, were referenced and dissected. Pls.’
Motion to Strike at 15–27. Plaintiffs now move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(c)(2) (“Rule 56”) and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (“Rule 403”) to
strike these exhibits as well as any references to these addenda in defendant’s
dispositive filings.
Two reasons, strengthened by one well-established tenet, compel denial of
plaintiffs’ request. First, these letters constitute an “official record” and represent the
results of a formal inquiry by a governmental entity and are thus admissible pursuant
to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) and may be properly considered without
contravening Rule 56(c)(2). FED. R. EVID. 803(8) (exempting from the hearsay
prohibition factual findings from a legally authorized investigation by a public entity
where no circumstance “indicate[s] a lack of trustworthiness”); FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2)
(evidence submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment may be struck if
inadmissible).Second, “while it is not unheard of to exclude evidence under Rule 403
at the summary judgment stage, . . . normally the balancing process contemplated by
that rule is best undertaken at the trial itself,” Adams v. Ameritech Servs., Inc., 231 F.3d
414, 428 (7th Cir. 2000), an approach that has been endorsed by several district courts
within the Second Circuit, see, e.g., SEC v. McGinnis, No. 5:14-cv-6, 2015 WL

2

5643186, at *15 n.12 (D. Vt. Sept. 23, 2015) (“[T]he reason for excluding evidence that
is unfairly prejudicial (because it may inflame the jury) is simply not present at the
summary judgment phase.”); Murray v. Miron, No. 3:11 CV 629 (JGM), 2015 WL
4041340, at *9 (D. Conn. July 1, 2015) (noting that the “fact-intensive, context-specific
inquiry” required by Rule 403 “must be made at trial” (emphasis added)). Both these
conclusions are buttressed by the Second Circuit’s repeatedly-cited “preference that
litigation disputes be resolved on the merits.” Marfia v. T.C. Ziraat Bankasi, 100 F.3d
243, 249 (2d Cir. 1996).
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to strike is DENIED.

SO ORDERED
/S/ Frederic Block_________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
February 7, 2017

3