`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`Norfolk Division
`
`IN RE PEANUT FARMERS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19cy463
`
`ORDER
`
`This class action is based on allegations by Plaintiff peanut growers that the Defendant
`
`Golden Peanut Company ("Golden Peanut" or "Defendant"), with others, engaged in a multi-year
`
`conspiracy to fix the price of Runner peanuts. Before the Court now is Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine
`
`to Exclude Evidence Relating to Plaintiffs' Contacts with Other Peanut Farmers and memorandum
`
`in support. ECF No. 312, 313-316.' Defendant filed its opposition, ECF Nos. 425, 432, attach.
`
`11-17,^ and Plaintiffs replied, ECF Nos. 449-451 ? The Court decides the Motion without a hearing
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) and E.D. Va. Local Civil Rule 7(J).
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`This Court has previously noted: "[a]lthough not specifically provided for in the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence, motions in limine ha[ve] evolved under the federal courts' inherent authority
`
`to manage trials. The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow a court to rule on evidentiary issues
`
`in advance of trial in order to avoid delay, ensure an even-handed and expeditious trial, and focus
`
`the issues the jury will consider." However, a motion in limine should be granted only when the
`
`' Both parties submitted redacted (and publicly filed) and unredacted (and under seal) versions of their briefing and
`exhibits. Except as where otherwise noted, the Court's citations are to the publicly filed briefs.
`^ See n.l.
`^ See n.l.
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 570 Filed 02/22/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 20890
`
`evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." Intelligent Verification Sys., LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., No. 2:12-CV-525, 2015 WL 1518099, at *9 (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2015), affdsub
`
`nom. Intelligent Verification Sys., LLC v. Majesco Entm't Co., 628 F. App'x 767 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`B. Discussion
`
`Based on certain questions defense counsel asked during depositions. Plaintiffs seek an
`
`Order preventing Golden Peanut from making any reference to Plaintiffs' contacts with other
`
`peanut farmers, especially with respect to peanut market information, including prices. ECF No.
`
`315. Plaintiffs argue that such information is irrelevant to Golden Peanut's conduct under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 402, which is the conduct at issue in this case, and unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiffs under
`
`Rule 403 to the extent it suggests that Plaintiffs own conduct is at issue. Id. Golden Peanut argues
`
`that such evidence is relevant to demonstrate that Plaintiffs' discussions regarding pricing
`
`information tends to establish that such information was publicly known and not confidential, and
`
`to demonstrate that there are legitimate reasons for competitors to discuss market information.
`
`ECF No. 425. It asserts it would not offer such communications to suggest Plaintiffs' conduct was
`
`untoward. Id.
`
`Mindful of the proposition that motions in limine should be granted "only when the
`
`evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds," under these circumstances the Court
`
`cannot say that there are no grounds on which Plaintiffs' communications amongst each other
`
`regarding peanut market information might be relevant. Either of the potential grounds Golden
`
`Peanut asserts may make certain communications relevant depending on the specific matters
`
`discussed and the circumstances under which such communications occurred. This is so because
`
`the relevance of any particular evidence often depends upon the context and purpose for which it
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 570 Filed 02/22/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 20891
`
`is offered. "A reviewing court is handicapped in any effort to rule on subtle evidentiary questions
`
`outside a factual context." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 42 (1984). A blanket bar on such
`
`a broad category of information outside the factual context in which it might be offered goes too
`
`far. "Orders in limine which exclude broad categories of evidence should rarely be employed. A
`
`better practice is to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence when they arise." Sperberg v.
`
`Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir.1975). The trial judge is in the best
`
`position to determine, in real time, the relevance and admissibility of this type of evidence.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion, ECF No. 312, is DENIED.
`
`The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Norfolk, Virginia
`February 22, 2021
`
`lawrenceiih:eonard
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
