Au New Haven, LLC et al v. YKK Corporation

Filing 873

ORDER: This order concerns four topics. First, for the reasons stated at the December 29, 2022 conference, if Defendants' witnesses Akinobu Shibata and Masayuki Sarumaru testify in either upcoming trial in this case, they must do so through a Japanese interpreter. Second, for the reasons given at the same conference, Defendants' motion in limine number 17, Dkt. No. 652, is granted in part; Plaintiffs' exhibit 77 is excluded from the high end outerwear (HEO) trial but is not excluded from the second trial while Plaintiffs' exhibit 80 is excluded from both trials. Third, for the reasons given at the same conference, Defendants' motion in limine number 18, Dkt. No. 654, is denied. Finally, for the reaso ns given at the same conference, the Court expects to adopt Defendants' proposals concerning the timing for exchange of notices of witnesses and exhibits when it enters a final pretrial order in this case. See Dkt. No. 840 at 13. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 12/29/2022) (rro)

Case 1:15-cv-03411-GHW-SN Document 873 Filed 12/29/22 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
AU NEW HAVEN, LLC, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
-v :
:
YKK CORPORATION, et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
:
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 12/29/2022

1:15-cv-3411-GHW
ORDER

This order concerns four topics. First, for the reasons stated at the December 29, 2022
conference, if Defendants’ witnesses Akinobu Shibata and Masayuki Sarumaru testify in either
upcoming trial in this case, they must do so through a Japanese interpreter. Second, for the reasons
given at the same conference, Defendants’ motion in limine number 17, Dkt. No. 652, is granted in
part; Plaintiffs’ exhibit 77 is excluded from the high end outerwear (HEO) trial but is not excluded
from the second trial while Plaintiffs’ exhibit 80 is excluded from both trials. Third, for the reasons
given at the same conference, Defendants’ motion in limine number 18, Dkt. No. 654, is denied.
Finally, for the reasons given at the same conference, the Court expects to adopt Defendants’
proposals concerning the timing for exchange of notices of witnesses and exhibits when it enters a
final pretrial order in this case. See Dkt. No. 840 at 13.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 29, 2022

__________________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge