Ditch Witch of Charlotte, Inc. v. Bandit Industries, Inc.
Filing
112
ORDER denying 79 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 82 Motion in Limine; denying 85 Motion in Limine; denying 88 Motion in Limine; denying 94 Motion to Strike. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 6/14/17. (ssh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:15CV181
DITCH WITCH OF CHARLOTTE, INC.,
d/b/a Ditch Witch of the Carolinas,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Vs.
)
)
BANDIT INDUSTRIES, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon numerous Motions in Limine filed by the parties.
The Court held a pre-trial conference on June 14, 2017 in which the Court announced its rulings
on the Motions in Limine. For the reasons stated in open court,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony on Alleged Counterclaim Damages
(Doc. No. 79) is hereby DENIED;
2) Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence under Rules 402 and 403 (Doc. No. 82)
is hereby GRANTED as to the Court’s prior rulings at the preliminary injunction and
summary judgment stages of the case, DENIED as to sales of Ditch Witch of aftermarket
cutter-body assemblies except that Bandit may not mention anything with regard to
patent infringement, DENIED as to provisions of the Dealer Agreement relating to
termination and non-renewal, and DENIED with regard to Bandit’s alleged reliance on
extra-contractual promises by Ditch Witch;
3) Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Defendant’s Purported Industry
Experts (Doc. No. 85) is hereby DENIED;
4) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence Relevant Only to the SC Act
Claim (Doc. Nos. 88 and 89) is hereby DENIED;
5) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Certain Damages Evidence in
Connection with Ditch Witch’s Claim Under South Carolina Law (Doc. Nos. 88 and 90)
is hereby DENIED;
6) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3 to Prohibit Use of the Term “Termination” With
Respect to the Dealer Agreement (Doc. Nos. 88 and 91) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT;
7) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Argument and Jury Instructions That
Bandit’s Selling Directly to Customers is a Breach of Contract (Doc. Nos. 88 and 92) is
hereby DENIED; and
8) Defendant’s Motion to Strike Late Expert Reports (Doc. No. 94) is hereby DENIED.
Signed: June 14, 2017
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?