UHS of Delaware, Inc. v. United Health Services, Inc.
Filing
270
ORDER DENYING UHS Delaware's MIL 192 to exclude evidence of or comment on investigations by the DOJ, in particular an ongoing regulatory investigation by DOJ re: certain UHS Delaware's behavioral health facilities. (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. 192) in limine by plaintiff UHS of Delaware, Inc. (“UHS Delaware”), seeking
to exclude evidence of or comment on investigations by the Department of Justice
(“DOJ”), in particular an ongoing regulatory investigation by the DOJ concerning
certain of UHS Delaware’s behavioral health facilities, wherein UHS Delaware
maintains that such evidence and comment is irrelevant and unduly prejudicial,
and the motion having been fully briefed by UHS Delaware and 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”), (see Docs.
193, 214, 224), 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 exercise its
discretion to “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 it appearing that UHS Delaware’s
argument is twofold, to wit: (1) that evidence concerning any DOJ investigation is
irrelevant to its claims as UHS Delaware is seeking only disgorgement of profits as a
remedy, such that “no evidence of [its] reputation is required,” (Doc. 193 at 10), and
(2) that such evidence would unduly prejudice UHS Delaware, confuse the issues,
or mislead the jury, (see id. at 12-14), and it further appearing that United Health
Services rejoins that evidence of an ongoing investigation is relevant to whatever
extent UHS Delaware intends to argue that its reputation has been harmed by
United Health Services’ alleged trademark infringement, (see Doc. 214 at 7-14), and
the court noting that, by order of today’s date, the court barred UHS Delaware from
admitting evidence of lost goodwill or reputational injury given UHS Delaware’s
express abandonment of any claim for actual damages, and that evidence of a DOJ
investigation is irrelevant to the extent offered as an alternative explanation for any
lost goodwill, but that evidence of regulatory investigations or other action taken
against UHS Delaware is relevant to its allegation that United Health Services
“intended to trade off . . . the extensive goodwill built up by” UHS Delaware, (Doc.
14-3 ¶ 54), and turning next to UHS Delaware’s concern regarding the potential of
this evidence to mislead, the court noting that this matter will be tried as a bench
trial rather than by jury, and that, in the bench trial context, Rule 403 is generally
inapplicable, because the judge is unlikely to be misled or confused by legal or
2
factual nuance and 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 Rule
403 does not bar admission of evidence of or comment on DOJ investigations, it is
hereby ORDERED that UHS Delaware’s motion (Doc. 192) in limine is DENIED.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?