Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Max Rack, Inc. v. Core Health & Fitness, LLC

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

December 3, 2019

MAX RACK, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CORE HEALTH & FITNESS, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          Vascura Magistrate Judge

          OPINION & ORDER

          ALGENON L. MARBLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff and Defendants' Motions in Limine. (Docs. 58, 59, 71, 72.) The Final Pretrial Conference in this case was held on Monday, December 2, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Evidence of Defendants' Cost of Goods Sold [#58], GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Evidence of Trademark Invalidity [#59], DENIES Defendants' Motion in Limine to Bifurcate Trial [#71], and GRANTS Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Witnesses [#72].

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A motion in limine refers to “any motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). The purpose of such a motion is “to narrow the issues remaining for trial and to minimize disruptions at trial.” United States v. Brawner, 173 F.3d 966, 970 (6th Cir. 1999). In disposing of a motion in limine, the guiding principle is to “ensure evenhanded and expeditious management of trials.” Ind. Ins. Co. v. GE, 326 F.Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004).

         III. ANALYSIS

         1. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Evidence of Defendants' Cost of Goods Sold [#58]

         Plaintiff first asks the Court to exclude any evidence not already produced during discovery regarding Defendants' cost of goods sold in connection with the allegations of trademark infringement. See 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) (“In assessing profits [for a trademark infringement violation] the plaintiff shall be required to prove defendant's sales only; defendant must prove all elements of cost or deduction claimed.”). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion [#58].

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) provides that a party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)-or who has responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission-must supplement or correct its disclosure or response “in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1)(A). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c), in turn, instructs that if a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), “the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1).

         Here, Plaintiff asserts that it requested production of all documents supporting Defendants' cost of goods sold in connection with the trademark infringement claims. (See doc. 58 at 4.) To date, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not provided any responsive documentary evidence. (See id.) As such, Plaintiff asks the Court to exclude any evidence of Defendants' cost of goods that has not already been produced.

         Defendants do not address the substance of Plaintiff's Motion; rather, Defendants maintain that the Court should refrain from resolving the matter until after Plaintiff establishes liability on its claims. Considering, however, that the purpose of a motion in limine is to narrow the issues remaining for trial, the Court rejects Defendants' position. Accordingly, seeing no opposition to the merits of Plaintiff's argument, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Evidence of Defendants' Cost of Goods Sold [#58].

         2. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Undisclosed Evidence of Trademark Invalidity [#59]

         Next, Plaintiff asks the Court to exclude any evidence not already produced during discovery regarding the invalidity of the MAX RACK trademark. In essence, Plaintiff seeks an order prohibiting Defendants from attempting to contest the validity of its trademark. Defendants did not file a response to Plaintiff's Motion, presumably concurring in the requested relief. Accordingly, the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.