Anderson et al v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 475

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying without prejudice #392 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice #395 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice #420 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice #428 Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice #436 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 9/9/2014. (blh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
ARVA ANDERSON,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT
THAT ACTIONS OR KNOWLEDGE OF A
TRADE ASSOCIATION ARE IMPUTED
TO ITS MEMBERS

Plaintiff,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY., et al,
Defendant.

Case No. 2:06-CV-741 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Flowserve Corporation’s (f/k/a Durco
International, Inc.) Motion in Limine to Preclude Argument that the Actions or Knowledge of a
Trade Association are Imputed to its Members (Docket No. 392), Defendant Crane Co.’s Motion
in Limine to Preclude the Action or Knowledge of a Trade Association from Being Imputed to
Members Unless Plaintiff Provides Evidence that a Member had Actual Knowledge of, and
Approved, the Action of the Trade Association (Docket No. 395), Defendant Goulds Pumps,
Inc.’s Motion in Limine to Preclude the Actions or Knowledge of a Trade Association from
Being Imputed to its Members Unless Plaintiff Provides Evidence that a Member had Actual
Knowledge of, and Approved, the Actions of the Trade Association (Docket No. 420),
Defendant Sepco Corporation’s Motion in Limine to Preclude the Actions or Knowledge of a
Trade Association from Being Imputed to its Members Unless Plaintiff Provides Evidence that a
Member had Actual Knowledge of, and Approved, the Actions of the Trade Association (Docket
No. 428), and Defendant York International Corporation’s Motion in Limine to Preclude the
1

Actions or Knowledge of a Trade Association from Being Imputed to its Members Unless
Plaintiff Provides Evidence that a Member had Actual Knowledge of, and Approved, the Actions
of the Trade Association (Docket No. 436).
In Defendants’ Motions in Limine, Defendants anticipate that Plaintiff will introduce
evidence regarding trade association activities and attempt to impute to Defendants the conduct
and knowledge of the trade association on its members. 1 Defendants acknowledge that under
certain circumstances trade association knowledge may be imputed to a trade association. 2
Defendants argue that because Plaintiff has yet to demonstrate such circumstances exist, any
evidence attempting to impute such knowledge is irrelevant. 3 Further, Defendants claim that any
attempt to impute trade association knowledge on Defendants would provide marginal
evidentiary value, which would be outweighed by the undue prejudice, confusion, and waste of
time.
Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 limit admissible evidence to relevant evidence
that has probative value not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusing the issues, misleading the jury, causing undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
presenting cumulative evidence. 4 If Plaintiff offers evidence that attempts to impute trade
association knowledge to Defendants and defense counsel timely objects to the admissibility of

1

Docket No. 392, at 2; Docket No. 395, at 1-2.

2

Id. (citing N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co. 458 U.S. 886, 919 (1986) (quoting
Scale v. United States, 367 U.S. 203, 229 (1961))).
3

Id.

4

Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403.

2

such evidence, the Court will decide at that time whether the evidence is admissible under Rules
402 and 403.
It is therefore ORDERED Defendants’ Motions in Limine (Docket Nos. 392, 395, 420,
428, and 436) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED this 9th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

3