Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC v. Neuman et al
Filing
353
OPINION & ORDER re: (341 in 1:18-cv-04252-LLS) MOTION in Limine . filed by Amanda Zachman, Greg Williams, Antony Mitchell, Jonathan Neuman, Daryl Clark, Ritz Advisors, LLC, (297 in 1:18-cv-07142-LLS) MOTION in Limine . filed by MV Realty PBC, LLC. MV Realty Parties' ( "MV") Motion in Limine No. 2 ("To preclude evidence concerning irrelevant provisions in agreements between MV and third parties") is denied. The evidence consists of con fidentiality provisions and restrictive covenants in more than a dozen agreements by which MV restrained third parties to whom MV disclosed its business methods from revealing their nature to others. But common sense and normal experience see the c areful guarding of something as an indication that it is valuable to its owner and (failing other explanations) that those business methods were regarded as valuable by MV. The value of those methods is a core issue in the case and Innovatus has th e right to argue that MV regarded the business opportunity and methods as confidential and worth protection from disclosure. That evidence is relevant, and MV's motion to preclude it is denied. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 10/12/2022) (rro)
Case 1:18-cv-04252-LLS Document 353 Filed 10/12/22 Page 1 of 2
. ORIGINAL
l '"DC SDNY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
INNOVATUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
18 Civ. 04252
(LLS)
- against OPINION & ORDER
JONATHAN NEUMAN, ANTONY MITCHELL, RITZ
ADVISORS, LLC, GREG WILLIAMS, DARYL
CLARK, AND AMANDA ZACHMAN,
Defendants.
MV REALTY PBC, LLC,
Plaintiff,
18 Civ. 07142
- against -
(LLS )
OPINION & ORDER
INNOVATUS CAPITAL PARTNERS,
LLC,
Defendants.
MV Realty Parties'
( "MV") Motion in Limine No. 2 ( "To
preclude evidence concerning irrelevant provisions in agreements
between MV and third parties" ) is denied.
The evidence consists of confidentiality provisions and
restrictive covenants in more than a dozen agreements by which
1
Case 1:18-cv-04252-LLS Document 353 Filed 10/12/22 Page 2 of 2
MV restrained third parties to whom MV disclosed its business
methods from revealing their nature to others .
But common sense and normal experience see the careful
guarding of something as an indication that it is valuable to
its owner and (failing other explanations) that those business
methods were regarded as valuable by MV.
The value of those methods is a core issue in the case and
I nnovatus has the right to argue that MV regarded the business
opportunity and methods as confidential and worth protection
from disclosure .
That evidence is relevant , and MV ' s motion to preclude it
is denied .
So ordered.
Dated :
New York , New York
October 12 , 2022
LOUIS L . STANTON
U. S . D. J .
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?