Clark Distribution Systems, Inc. v. ALG Direct, Inc. et al

Filing 139

ORDER denying ALG Direct's motion in limine 83 w/out prejudice to ALG's right to object to evidence or argument it believes is improperly offered @ trial. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 9/11/14. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CLARK DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS,
INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
ALG DIRECT, INC.,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-2575
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 83) in limine, filed by defendant ALG Direct, Inc. (“ALG”), to either limit or
preclude plaintiff Clark Distribution Systems, Inc.’s (“CDS”) presentation of evidence
regarding claimed “losses of approximately $337,997.00” allegedly incurred as a result
of CDS’s efforts to convert a higher-than-anticipated volume of ALG’s materials to a
condition acceptable to the USPS, wherein ALG argues that CDS has failed to present
competent evidence during discovery to support the alleged damages, and upon
further consideration of the response (Doc. 87) thereto filed by CDS, wherein CDS
asserts that the argument under consideration is procedurally improper and should
have been raised in a motion for summary judgment, and that CDS has presented
sufficient evidence to proceed with its claim for $337,997 in damages, and the court
noting that motions in limine are intended to address the admissibility of evidence at
trial, not dispositive issues more appropriately raised in a motion for summary
judgment, see Klatch-Maynard v. Sugarloaf Twp., No. 3:06-cv-0845, 2011 WL 3476814,
at *2-3 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2011) (denying a motion in limine seeking a ruling that

plaintiff presented sufficient pretrial evidence to submit a claim for punitive damages
to the jury); see also Dunn ex rel. Albery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 264 F.R.D.
266, 274 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (noting that motions in limine should be denied when the
moving party seeks to “prevent the non-moving party from presenting its case”);
Mavrinac v. Emergency Med. Ass’n of Pittsburgh, No. 04-1880, 2007 WL 2908007, at *1
(W.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2007) (“Motions in limine are inappropriate vehicles to seek a final
determination with respect to a substantive cause of action, and should not be used as
a substitute for a motion for summary judgment.”); Bowers v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic
Ass’n, 563 F. Supp. 2d 508, 531 (D.N.J. 2008) (denying a motion in limine for
improperly “call[ing] upon the Court to weigh the sufficiency of the evidence in
support of the parties’ claims and defenses and, in effect, to resolve the parties’ factual
disputes on the eve of trial”); and the court concluding that a ruling on the sufficiency
of the evidence presented in support of CDS’s claim for $337,997 in damages is
inappropriate at this stage, see Klatch-Maynard, 2011 WL 3476814, at *2-3, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 83) in limine to either limit or preclude CDS’s
presentation of evidence regarding claimed “losses of approximately $337,997.00”
allegedly incurred as a result of CDS’s efforts to convert a higher-than-anticipated
volume of ALG’s materials to a condition acceptable to the USPS is DENIED without

2

prejudice to ALG’s right to object to evidence or argument it believes is improperly
offered at trial.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania