UHS of Delaware, Inc. v. United Health Services, Inc.

Filing 268

ORDER DENYING UHS Delaware's MIL 178 to exclude evidence & argument re: ist wealth, size, or power compared to defts (collectively "United Health Services"). (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/8/17. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UHS OF DELAWARE, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
UNITED HEALTH SERVICES,
INC., et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-485
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2017, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 178) in limine by plaintiff UHS of Delaware, Inc. (“UHS Delaware”), seeking
to exclude evidence and argument concerning its wealth, size, or power compared
to defendants United Health Services, Inc., United Health Services Hospitals, Inc.,
Professional Home Care, Inc., Twin Tier Home Health, Inc., Ideal Senior Living
Center, Inc., Ideal Senior Living Center Housing Corporation, Inc., Delaware
Valley Hospital, Inc., and United Medical Associates (collectively “United Health
Services”), on the ground that said comparison is both irrelevant and unduly
prejudicial, and the motion having been fully briefed and all parties thus having
been heard by the court, (Docs. 179, 215, 223), and the court observing that relevant
evidence is that which has a tendency to make a fact of consequence “more or less
probable than it would be without the evidence,” FED. R. EVID. 401, but that the
court may, in its discretion, “exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,

[or] . . . misleading the jury,” FED. R. EVID. 403, and the court resolving that
evidence concerning UHS Delaware’s financial status is relevant for purposes
of measuring the strength of the marks in this case in particular, where UHS
Delaware highlights its advertising expenditures and sales volume as evidence of
its marks’ commercial strength, (see Doc. 155-2 at 20-21), and asserts that it has
expended millions of dollars in advertising and promotion of its services under
those marks over the past two decades, (see id. at 20), and the court observing
that UHS Delaware’s argument cannot be weighed in a vacuum but must be
considered in proportion to UHS Delaware’s size and profits, and turning next to
UHS Delaware’s concern regarding prejudicial effect, the court noting that this
matter will be tried as a bench trial rather than a jury trial, and that, in the bench
trial context, courts generally should not exclude evidence under Rule 403 on
unfair prejudice grounds, because a judge is able to objectively assess probative
value and reject any improper inferences, see Suter v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of
Am., 424 F. Supp. 2d 781, 790-91 (D.N.J. 2006) (citations omitted), and the court
thus determining that there is no risk of prejudice from admission of evidence
concerning, or reference to, either party’s wealth, size, or power as compared to
the other, it is hereby ORDERED that UHS Delaware’s motion (Doc. 178) in limine
is DENIED.

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