`
`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
`
`