Pawelko v. Hasbro, Inc.
Filing
290
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 245 Motion in Limine; granting 249 Motion in Limine; denying provisionally 251 Motion in Limine; granting 252 Motion in Limine; granting 255 Motion in Limine; granting 256 Motion in Limine; granting 257 Motion to Strike ; denying 258 Motion to Strike ; granting 259 Motion in Limine; denying provisionally 260 Motion in Limine; granting 261 Motion in Limine; granting 262 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 123 Motion to Strike ; denying 124 Motion to Strike ; denying 125 Motion to Strike ; denying 126 MOTION for Phased Trial; denying 127 MOTION for an Order that the Remedy of Disgorgement be Decided by the Court, Not the Jury - So Ordered by Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. on 1/3/2020. (Barletta, Barbara)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MARISA PA'vVELE.O, d/b/a
THE MODERN SURREALIST
Plaintiff,
v.
HASBRO, INC.
Defendant.
C.A. No. 16-201-JJM-LDA
)
)
ORDER
This business dispute is now in the pretrial motion phase-each party seeking
the Court's guidance in their ramp up to trial. As a reminder of the facts underlying
this dispute, the Court reprints the factual recitation from .Magistrate Judge Lincoln
D. Almond's Report & Recommendation:
Plaintiff claims to be the inventor of an "original, innovative [crafting]
product and idea" known as "Liquid l'viosaic." She describes the
invention as "a one of a kind arts and crafts play system ... that made it
easy and fun for children to create art projects and decorate by using a
unique craft gun, with interchangeable extrusion tips to draw different
line patterns and create textures, and prefilled removable cartridges
containing· a compound that sticks to multiple surfaces .... " On
November 15, 2010, Plaintiff executed Hasbro's standard Nmr
disclosure Agreement and thereafter pitched the idea to Hasbro. Her
presentation included participation in a conference call, a five-page slide
deck sent by email, and three sample craft projects (a hat, a purse and
a light switch cover) made with a prototype compound made of caulk.
Hasbro passed on the idea in December 2010 ***Plaintiff contends that
Hasbro misappropriated her "Liquid Mosaic Submission" and used it to
develop Play Doh Plus and DohVinci, two new product lines that
incorporate the elements and features of "Liquid Mosaic." Hasbro
denies such misappropriation and disputes that the "Liquid Mosaic
Submission" qualifies as a legally protectable trade secret."
ECF No. 219 at 1-2 (citations omitted).
Before the Court are seventeen pretrial motions in Ms. Pawelko's trade secret
misappropriation and breach of contract case; Hasbro filed fourteen motions; 1
l'vis. Pawelko filed three motions. Each of these motions raises many issues-some at
the forefront of this litigation in need of pretrial determination and many side issues
the specter of which hovers in the abyss of potential trial issues. The Court does its
best to decide definitively those issues that are cued up and reserves its decision on
issues that may become moot before trial or that are more suitably decided closer to
or at trial.
To the extent this Order does not address all the parties' "what if'
arguments, it will do so when and if they come to fruition.
--
---;
I.
Hasbro's Motions Seeking to Strike or Exclude Damages Opinions
Hasbro has filed three motions that relate to the opinions and testimony from
Ms. Pawelko's two damages experts-Suzanne Mills-Winkler and Pauline Booth. ECF
Nos. 123, 124, 125. Because these three motions contain overlapping arguments, the
Court will address them globally.
A. The Experts
Ms. Mills-Winkler essentially g1ves two categories of opinions:
the Liquid
Mosaic compound Ms. Pawelko pitched to Hasbro 1s a trade secret and that the
royalty damages Hasbro owes Ms. Pawelko should be based on a royalty rate of
between 1 Y, and 5%. She does not offer opinions that a public submission is entitled
to royalties; instead she testifies that an invention qualifies as a trade secret even if
Fom of Hasbro's motions are duplicative of each other because it filed
redacted and non·reclacted versions of the same motion. ECF Nos. 249 and 259; ECF
Nos. 251 and 2GO; ECF Nos. 255 and 2G2; and ECF Nos. 25G and 2Gl.
1
2
it contains a compound available in the public domain, if that compound in a new
f(mn gives the ultimate product a competitive advantage. J\IIs. Mills·Winkler also
gives opinions on industry standards of confidentiality, Hasbro's breach, and how
that breach informed the facts on misappropriation.
Ms. Booth opines on the royalty base, which she says consists of the total net
sales of all products in the DohVinci sub·brand and the total net sales of all products
sold with the PlayDoh Plus compound. She defines net sales as the gross amounts
that Hasbro earned for the sale of each product less returns and discounts.
Ms. Booth's opines that Ms. Pawelko's damages are about $255 million. Her opinion
includes all profits from at least twenty·five products sold with Play Doh Plus and all
products sold under the DohVinci sub·brand earned or to be earned from 2014
through 2023. Those products contained other Hasbro·invented components such as
regular PlayDoh, cutlery, and extruders.
damages are $261,000 at most.
Hasbro's expert's opinion is that her
One explanation for this huge disparity is that
Ms. Booth's opinion does not restrict-or apportion-the damages to the allegedly
infringing component only and Hasbro's expert's opinion does.
1. Royalty Damages
Hasbro moves under Federal Rules of Evidence Rules 401, 403, and 702 and
under Daubert v. lvien-ell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) to exclude
some of Ms. lVIills·Winkler's opinions about what reasonable royalty damages to
which Ms. Pawelko may be entitled if the jury determines that Hasbro
misappropriated her trade secret.
Hasbro's main argument is that Ms. 1\'Iills-
3
Winkler's opinions are not based on an acceptable methodology and are speculative
because she did not adhere to the fifteen factors set forth in
US.
P~ywood
GeoJ'/]1~7 -Faci!J'c
Corp. v.
Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), modi!J'ed and aff'd sub
nom. Geo1'!]i,1-Fac. Corp. v. US. P~ywood-Cbampion Papel'S, Inc., 446 F.2d 295 (2d
Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 870 (1971) 2 to determine the reasonable royalty rate
percentage. ECF Nos. 123, 124. Hasbro also argues that .Ms. MillS" Winkler reduced
her royalty rate opinion at her deposition from 5% to 3% without explanation. ECF
No. 124. Ms. Pawelko counters that Ms . .Mills· Winkler's opinions meet the threshold
set forth in the rules and Daubel'tbecause she relies on her extensive work experience
in the toy industry in opining on the generally accepted and standard royalty rates.
Hasbro's arguments against Ms. Mills-Winkler, she argues, go to the credibility of
her opinions that Hasbro can test on cross-examination, not to their admissibility.
Rule 702 states that if"scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue" an
expert "may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise." Feel. R. Evicl. R. 702. This
Court must determine whether 1) the testimony embodies specialized knowledge and
2) that specialized knowledge is relevant so that it will help the jury make its factual
determinations. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592·3. As to the first inquiry, the United States
The Georgia-Facifie factors-an inexhaustive list-"are meant to provide a
reasoned economic framework for a 'hypothetical negotiation, ... [which) attempts to
ascertain the royalty upon which the parties would have agreed had they successfully
negotiated an agreement just before infringement began."' Whitserve, LLC v.
Comput. Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 27 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Lucent Techs., Inc.
v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d at 1301, 1324 (Feel. Cir. 2009)).
2
4
Supreme Court in Daubert noted that "[m]any factors will bear on the inquiry" such
as whether the scientific theory can be tested, whether it has been subject to peer
review, and whether it is generally accepted within the applicable community. ld. at
593·594.
1\'Is. Mills· Winkler stated that the general industry standard royalty rate in
the toy industry is 5%, discounted to 3% for co-branded products. She opined at first
in her report that PlayDoh Plus earned a 5% royalty rate, but after learning that
Play Doh Plus was a co· branded product, changed her opinion at her deposition to 3%.
Then' is no dispute that the percentages Ms. Mills-Winkler used in her opinion were
the industry standards generally accepted within the toy industry.
Hasbro's
witnesses confirmed that the industry standard for royalties was 5%. For this reason,
the Court finds that Ms. Mills· Winkler's opinions pass muster under Rule 702.
And the fact that she did not expound on every Georgia-Pacilic factor in her
report does not doom her opinion's admissibility. The court in Georgia-Facilic set
forth fifteen factors relevant to determining a reasonable royalty because it was
"necessary to resort to a broad spectrum of other evidentiary facts probative of a
'reasonable' royalty" when there was no "established" royalty. 318 F. Supp. at 1121.
Because there is an established toy industry standard royalty rate, the Court finds
that the fact that Ms. Mills- Winkler did not focus specifically on the GeOJ-gia-Facific
factors to render her opinions does not make those opinions inadmissible. If Hasbro
believes
her opinions are on
shaky
ground,
"[v]igorous cross-examination,
presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are
5
the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible
evidence." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596. Hasbro's motions on this point are DENIED.
ECF Nos. 123, 124.
2. Industry Standards of Confidentiality
Consistent with its previous Order, the Court finds that Ms. Mi!ls·Winkler's
opinions based on industry standards of confidentiality are not relevant to this case
in which the parties' Non-disclosme Agreement controls. See ECF No. 242. In its
reply, Hasbro moves to strike certain numbered paragraphs from Ms. Mills·Winkler's
report that relate to the Court's ruling and the Court therefore GRANTS Hasbro's
motion to strike as they relate to the industry standards of confidentiality. ECF No.
123.
3. Apportionment
Hasbro objects to both experts' failure to reduce their damages opinions to
account for Hasbro's contributions to the financial success of the Doh Vinci and
PlayDoh Plus product lines. Without this apportionment, it argues that Ms. Mills·
Winkler's and JVIs. Booth's 3 opinions are unreliable and should be excluded. ECF Nos.
124, 125.
Ms. Pawelko's theory of the case is that DohVinci and Play Doh Plus derived
from her Liquid JVIosaic Submission, PlayDoh Plus was the driving reason that
:! Hasbro argues for exclusion of Ms. Booth's opinion on the royalty base (ECF
No. 124) and on disgorgement of profits. ECF No. 125. Both motions are rooted in
its argument that Ms. Booth's calculations overstate Ms. Pawelko's damages because
she failed to apportion damages to account for the non-infringing components to the
PlayDoh Plus and DohVinci lines.
G
consumers bought the Play Doh Plus sets, and Hasbro decided to add on components
like regular PlayDoh, cutlery, and extruders to charge more money because the
PlayDoh Plus compound was so unique. Therefore, she argues, the "entire market
value rule" exception to apportionment applies because her invention is what
motivated consumers to buy the products Hasbro created using the misappropriated
Liquid Mosaic Submission. "The 'entire market rule' typically allows the recovery of
damages based on the entire value of an apparatus with several features, even thoug·h
only one feature is patented."
Jhtstees of' Columbia Univ. v. Roche Diagnostics
OmbH, 272 F. Supp. 2d 90, 119 (D. Mass. 2002) (citing Paper Conver6ng JlrLHch. Co.
v. Jv!agna-Oraphics Corp., 745 F.2d 11, 22 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). "For the entire market
value rule to apply, the patentee must prove that 'the patent·relatecl feature is the
basis for the customer demand."' Lucent Techs., 580 F.3d at 1336 (citation omitted).
Reviewing the cases the parties cite and others, it is clear to the Court that
appo1·tionment in trade misappropriation cases is a potentially important tool that
the parties can give the jury if the jury finds liability and determines that the plaintiff
suffered damages.
When the accused infringing products have both patented and
unpatented features, measuring this value requires a determination of
the value added by such features. Indeed, apportionment is required
even for nol1'royalty forms of damages: a jury must ultimately
"apportion the defendant's proftts and the patentee's damages between
the patented feature and the unpatented features" using "reliable and
tangible" evidence. Logically, an economist could do this in various
ways-by careful selection of the royalty base to reflect the value added
by the patented feature, where that differentiation is possible; by
adjustment of the royalty rate so as to discount the value of a product's
nonpatented features; or by a combination thereof. The essential
requirement is that the ultimate reasonable royalty award must be
7
based on the incremental value that the patented invention adds to the
end product.
Bi-icsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3cl 1201, 122G (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation
omitted).
But, as the court in En'csson highlighted, this is a determination that a jury
must make after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence. The jury will
also presumably hear evidence on Ms. Pawelko's theory of the entire market value
exception and determine whether the Liquid Mosaic Submission trade secret "is the
basis for the customer demand." Lucent Techs., 580 F.3d at 133G. At this point in
the case, pretrial, the Court cannot find that the fact that Ms. Pawelko's experts did
not apportion damages is fatal to the admissibility of their opinions. Ms. Pawelko's
experts may testify about how they selected the royalty mte and royalty base as
justification for their damages opinions and Hasbro can cross·examinc them based
on its defense theory. When the parties' damages numbers are inconsistent, they
must equip the jury with reliable and tangible evidence to decide which numbers are
more consistent with that evidence and which experts are more credible. Hasbro's
motion is DENIED. ECF Nos. 124, 125.
II.
Hasbro's Motion for a Phased Trial
Hasbro seeks a two-phase trial-first, the jury would decide whether Hasbro
was liable and if it so found, then the jury would decide damages. ECF No. 12G.
Hasbro argues that separating liability from damages will streamline the complicated
issues. Hasbro also believes that evidence of its profits and Ms. Pawelko's damages
are not relevant to liability because she cannot use its profits as evidence of the Liquid
8
Mosaic Submission's independent economic value.
Ms. Pawelko counters that
Hasbro's profits are relevant in proving her claim and argues that her case would be
prejudiced if she could not introduce evidence of sales and profits.
Despite reams of briefing, the Court does not believe that the trial of this
matter involves inherently complex concepts that merit bifurcation. The Court sees
no need to separate liability from damages. It is more likely that a phased trial would
lead to duplicative expert testimony and evidence, resulting in jurors' time being
misused. The Court DENIES Hasbro's motion. ECF No. 126.
III.
Hasbro's Motion for an Order that the Remedy ofDisgorgement be Decided
by the Court, not the Jury
Both parties agree that there is no right to a jury trial on disgorgement in a
misappropriation of trade secrets case, so the motion is DENIED AS MOOT. ECF
No. 127. Ms. Pawelko advocates that the chosen jurors sit in an advisory capacity
during the disgorgement evidence and the Court can either take or leave their finding
on disgorgement of profits. !VIs. Pawelko has presentee! no persuasive arguments in
favor of an advisory jury and "whether or not the advice of a jury would be helpful is
a matter lying entirely in the discretion of the trial court." Delman v. Fed Prod.
Co17J., 251 F.2d 123, 126 n. 2 (1st Cir. 1958). Her motion is DENIED. ECF No. 127.
IV.
Ms. Pawelko's Motion in Limine to Confirm Public Trial and Unseal
J uclicial Records
It appears to the Court that many, if not all, exhibits were filed under seal
either by agreement or without objection. Ms. Pawelko also asserts that there are
documents designated "For Attorney Eyes Only" that she has not personally seen.
I
9
Ms. Pawelko moves for a public trial because she believes that Hasbro will refuse to
display publicly some exhibits. ECF No. 245. Hasbro does not object to a "public
trial" but argues that she did not object to sealing any document and does not ask
that any specific document be unsealed in her motion.
Ms. Pawelko's motion is DENIED IN PART, GRANTED IN PART. The motion
is GRANTED in that this trial and the courtroom at all times will be open to the
public. The motion is DENIED in that the Court will not wholesale order that every
document here be unsealed without allowing the parties to assess either categories of
or individual documents. Before trial, the parties are ordered to meet and confer
about the sealed documents appearing on their respective exhibit lists. The parties
should alert the Court by letter if there are objections-i.e., whether there are grounds
to keep some documents under seal, with the presumption is that the public should
have access to exhibits enter into evidence at a trial. The Court will make an
independent determination of each document and whether it 011ght to be sealedagain the presumption in favor of not sealing.
V.
Hasbro's Motion in Limine to Exclude Diagrams Attached to Ms. Pawelko's
Third Amended Complaint
Ms. Pawelko created a diagram using pages from Hasbro's website, adding
headers and descriptions to the images, to show that Hasbro misappropriated her
idea. Hasbm moves to exclude these diagrams under Rules 801(c) and 403 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence, arguing that her additions to Hasbro's content are hearsay
and even if not hearsay, they m·e confusing and misleading because it could appear
that Hasbro added this information. Hasbro does not object, however, to admitting
10
the whole, unaltered website. Ms. Pawelko responds that she intends to testify that
she added the captions and that it is not hearsay because she is not offering the
diagrams for the truth, but as evidence of her investigation of the genesis of Doh Vinci
and its connection with her Liquid Mosaic invention.
Hashro's motion is GRANTED as to the Exhibit C attachment (the diagrams).
ECF No. 252. The Court agrees that admitting the altered website images as exhibits
could mislead the jury.
Ms. Pawelko could use the diagrams with headers and
descriptions as demonstratives during her testimony to help the jury better
understand her testimony and to learn about her investigation into the similarities
between Hasbro's Play Doh Plus and Doh Vinci products and her invention.
VI.
Ms. Pawelko's Motion to Strike and Exclude Tom Dusenberry's Opinions
and Testimony Regarding Industry Standards of Confidentiality
The Court struck the testimony and opinions of Ms. Mills·Winkler and
Ms. Rosenblum about industry standards of confidentiality, finding that the Non·
disclosme Agreement, not generic industry standards, that Hasbro and Ms. Pawelko
entered controls the issues here.
ECF No. 242.
Consistent with this ruling,
Ms. Pawelko moves to strike seven paragraphs (~!~! 23, 93, 102, 108, 109, 156, and
160) from Hasbro expert Tom Dusenberry's report and to exclude any consistent
testimony. In response, Hasbro included a chart in its opposition that moves to strike
many additional paragraphs from both Ms. Pawelko's and its own experts' reports to
be in line with the Court's ruling that the Non-disclosure Agreement controls.
The Court has ruled that opinions about industry standards of confidentiality
are irrelevant to this case and no testimony on this subject will be permitted at trial.
11
The Court GRANTS Ms. Pawelko's motion. ECF No, 257. Without specifically ruling
on each paragraph raised, the Court defers to the parties to follow its ruling on this
issue and to prepare their witnesses accordingly and present appropriate expert
testimony.
VII.
Ms. Pawelko's Motion to Strike and Exclude Evidence Regarding Her
Consulting Services Agreement with Adhesive Technologies
Ms. Pawelko entered into a consulting contract with Adhesive Technologies
("Ac!Tech"), using part. of the same Liquid Mosaic Submission presentation that she
presented to Hasbro, more than three years after she presented the idea to Hasbro.
Hasbro does not contend that her contract with AdTech prohibits her right to bring a
misappropriation claim, but argues that the fact that Ms. Pawelko transferred
ownership of the Liquid Mosaic Submission to AdTech in April 2014 is relevant
because it shows that she can have no damages for misappropriation after that date;
the fact that she accepted $2500 from AdTech shows the value she placed on the
Liquid Mosaic Submission; Ac!Tech chose to not use Ms. Pawelko's idea; and it is
relevant to liability because Ms. Pawelko told AclTech that her invention was inspired
by another product on the public market.
The Court finds that Ms. Pawelko's contract with AclTech may be relevant to
the jury's determination of the measure and calculation of damages. The Court does
not. believe that, when presented as part of the timeline of the case, the Ac!Tech
contract will confuse or mislead the jury, but the Court will entertain jury
instructions at the appropriate time to avoid any confusion. Ms. Pawelko's motion is
DENIED. ECF No. 258.
12
VIII. Hasbro's Motion in Limine to Exclude Patent· Based Argument
Ms. Pawelko's Liquid Mosaic Submission contained eig·ht elements, each of
which are not by themselves protectable trade secrets, but she asserts it is the
combination of those elements that was novel. Hasbro obtained three patents-two
for PlayDoh compounds and one for a DohVinci extruder-that Ms. Pawelko argues
goes to the use element of her misappropriation claim because Hasbro would not have
received these patents without her invention. There is no dispute that Hasbro did
not obtain a patent on the Liquid Mosaic Submission per se and both parties agree
that individual elements are not protectable trade secrets. Hasbro moves to exclude
any patent· based arguments, arguing that its patents are not relevant to whether the
eight combined elements of the Liquid Mosaic Submission is a trade secret and their
admission is prejudicial because the jury will be confused by the import of Hasbro
receiving these patents.
Ms. Pawelko argues that she should be permitted to use the patent
applications to show that her ideas were novel, and Hasbro used them even if it did
not obtain a patent on the entire Liquid Mosaic Submission concept. Whether an
invention is novel is a consideration when the United States Patent Office (USPO) is
reviewing a patent application. The patent applications could show that Hasbro
representee! to the USPO that its submissions were novel but are not evidence that
Hasbro (or the USPO) believed that the combination concept of Liquid ·Mosaic
Submission was novel and protectable as a trade secret. Testimony from expert and
lay witnesses on both sides seem to be a more reliable way to elicit evidence of novelty.
13
1
The Court GRANTS Hasbro's motion excluding the patent applications as
proof that Ms. Pawelko's ideas were novel. ECF No. 259. But the Court leaves open
the possibility that the patent applications could be used to prove other elements of
her case such as the parameters of Hasbro's alleged use of the Liquid l'viosaic
Submission so that it will not foreclose the admissibility of the patent applications at
this time.
IX.
Hasbro's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Thomas P.
Hamilton's Purported Breaches of Hasbro's Own Policies Relating to
Confidentiality and Certain Communications
The purported inventor of the accused products, Thomas P. Hamilton
forwarded seven emails to his husband. Hasbro moves to exclude them because they
imply that he revealed confidential Hasbro information in violation of Hasbro's
confidentiality policy.
Hasbro also asks that the emails be excluded because
Mr. Hamilton referred to his husband using a pet name.
Ms. Pawelko objects,
arguing that the emails are admissible and go to Mr. Hamilton's credibility because
they contradict his deposition testimony, where he testified that he never violated
Hasbro's confidentiality policy.
The Court has consistently ruled that because the parties entered into the Now
disclosure Agreement those are the confidentiality terms applicable to this dispute.
At this time, it is unclear to the Court how Hasbro's intemal confidentiality policy
impacted the way it dealt with Ms. Pawelko's submission, if at all. It may become
relevant depending on how the evidence develops during trial; or it may not so the
Court will reserve judgment on the exclusion of this evidence. Ms. Pawelko may be
able to test Mr. Hamilton's credibility with his contradictory deposition testimony
whether he has an explanation for his violation of Hasbro policies. The Comt thus
DENIES Hasbro's motion without prejudico 4 and will decide this issue after the
interplay of evidence clarifies the matter. ECF No. 260.
X.
Hasbro's Motion in Limine Regarding the Admissibility ofEmails Produced
by Marissa Pawelko (ECF No. 256 (261)) and Hasbro's Motion in Limine to
Admit Internet Evidence (ECF No. 255 (262)).
Ms. Pawelko does not object to these two motions; they are GRANTED. ECF
Nos. 256 (261) and 255 (262).
SUMMARY OF RULINGS:
l.
Hasbro's Motion to Strike and Exclude Certain Expert Opinions and
Testimony of Suzanne Mills·Winkler (ECF No. 123) is DENIED IN PART and
GRANTED IN PART;
2.
Hasbro's :Motion to Strike and Exclude Expert Opinions and Testimony
of Suzanne Mills· Winkler and Pauline Booth on the Issue of Royalty Damages (ECF
No. 124) is DENIED;
3.
Hasbro's Motion to Strike and Exclude Expert Opinions and Testimony
of Pauline Booth on the Issue of Disgorgement of Profits (ECF No. 125) is DENIED;
4.
Hasbro's Motion for a Phased Trial (ECF No. 12G) is DENIED;
5.
Hasbro's .Motion for an Order that the Remedy of Disgorgement be
Decided by the Comt, not the Jmy (ECF No. 127) is DENIED;
G.
!VIs. Pawelko's J\1Iotion in Limine to Confirm Public Trial and Unseal
Judicial Records (ECF No. 245) is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART;
4
If the Comt admits these emails, any prejudicial pet name can be redacted.
15
7.
Hasbro's Motion in Limine
to Exclude Diagrams Attached to
Ms. Pawelko's Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 252) is GRANTED;
8.
Ms. Pawelko's Motion to Strike a nd Exclude Tom Dusenberry's Opinions
and Tes timony Reg·arding Industry Standa rds of Confidentiality (ECF No. 257) is
GRANTED ;
9.
lVfs. Pawel ko's Motion to Strike and Exclude Evidence Regarding
lVIs. Pawelko's Consulting Services Agreement with Adhesive Technologies (ECF No.
258) is DENIED ;
10.
Hasbro's rviotion in Limine to Exclude Patent-Based Argument (ECF
Nos. 249 (259)) is GRANTED;
11 .
Hasbro's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Relating to Thomas P.
Hamilton's P urpor ted Breaches of Hasbro's Own Policies Relating to Confidentiality
and Ce rtain Com munications (ECF Nos . 251 (260)) is provisionally DENIED;
12.
Hasbro filed two motions that Ms. Pawelko does not object to- they a re
Hasbro's Motion in Limine Regarding the Admissibility of Email Produced by
Ms. Pawelko (ECF Nos. 256 (261)) and Hasbro's Motion in Limine to Admi t Internet
Evidence (ECF Nos. 255 (262)). Because there is no objection, they are GRANTED .
John J. lVIcConnell, Jr.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Ja nua ry 3, 2020
lG
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?