-DEM Corbin Bernsen v. Innovative Legal Marketing, LLC, No. 2:2011cv00546 - Document 94 (E.D. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM ORDER Granting re: 71 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Any Purported Expert Testimony of Defendant's Proposed Expert. Accordingly, Dinzler may not testify generally about the use of a spokesperson in advertising campaigns nor to how negative press coverage of the spokesperson unfavorably impacts consumers' impressions of products generally. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller and filed on 10/31/12. (ldab, )

Download PDF
-DEM Corbin Bernsen v. Innovative Legal Marketing, LLC UNITED Doc. 94 STAE THE FOR DISTRC EASTRN COURT DISTRC OF Norflk CORBIN VIRGNA Divson BERNS Plaintf, ACTION v. INOVATE LEGA MARKETING, NO. 2:1CV546 LC, Defndats. MEORANDU The Plaintf, Inovatie Corbin Legal under ILM would parties motin aperd during the worked as actions negativly since wel set as a moved to the for efctivns the Dinzler tesimony as wil a 201. exprt. as based fuly on his briefd the to and reason designat the staed Dinzler, how ILM's exprinc Court motin. to for things the For ILM tesify doing befor Berns' spokern be is 26, an to by is GRANTS company, contra mater October as campign. mater The Court advertisng the witnes. Defndat, agremnt Case The on Randy Big Berns. exprt from a spokern breachd and below, exclud his Dinzler's clients, detail on ILM's hearing employ impacted opins. other in damges contra Berns a telphonic forth contra its recov of licensg ILM's for and has ILM, to breach tha exclud counsel hearing Berns as to by for counters on Berns' action firms and unfavorbly resolv ("ILM), claims reflctd this law promte Berns' whic filed LC Berns denis has Berns, Marketing, whic ORDE who Berns' Big course in Case of lega Campign, marketing 195. Dockets.Justia.com Acording the to use and impact impacted provide Big Berns' to Campign is stil be permitd to on tesify as spokern to negativ in at becaus minds Reply, his to impacted to the by Big Dinzler to ofer the folwing campigns from the use potenial spokern consumer]," "creat the should companies Advertisng regadin the marketing inteds reactions the regadin tha whic repot: emotinal tesify asert factors, exprt consumer an spokern' impact unfavorble product." the had on regad. Big di not the adres same reason Campign, inted and the therfo, in isue. Dinzler (ECF would Dinzler's to the extn necsary to to role, conteds the 85 Bersn the asert Court, from impact Berns' Berns' 1). Berns' to potenial tha efct at whetr apers any In fact-indg No. it tesify opin. he about Howevr, to its tesify tesimony Dinzler this Finaly, (ECF exclud. for ofer jury a spokern." tha be not asit whetr should does to a compliated as Campign ILM Case not not efctivns Case tha the ILM for Big recod, qualifed wil "Berns' exclud the and have this in on be suficently is tha had" not a spokern acknowledgs fact brief is tesimony of should in Dinzler Dinzler's have tesimony may GRANTED tesify Acordingly, condut now conerig potenial tha use his reply condut not Campign.1 company Dinzler evnts tha likey di ILM's Case to since wil foundati and and of argues "would condut Big the from or a company's such groups Howevr, Dinzler Bersn' Campign, Therfo, atiudnl the he tha focus 3). aditon, in the how framewok, sumarized conteds 1 Bersn, condut condut. tha about Berns' condut Berns' suficent Case genral coverag Berns condut the "evok[] pres No.72-1 Big condut. opin impreson lacks the to spokern' chalengd and Dinzler condut a on about how to coneds had tesimony coneds Berns' evalut ILM have Dinzler's ILM of of opins GRANTED. Althoug impact exclud genral goin impact condute, may ofer and was the actions to campign Dinzler timely Berns' motin Case ben inteds advertisng regadin not impact an Orignaly, tesimony have Dinzler in Campign. groups specif repot, spokern hisfor focus exprt a Case suport any discloe of the thes his motin Berns' is Dinzler's tesimony is unecsarily undly confuse include the tha him Dinzler's by in Berns' condut condut the cited negativ above pres more than impact the his for the motin in of limne to Dinzler's studen jury has and aditon, industry ILM as in repot, in suget ILM, should detrming whetr below exclud advertisng no staed Dinzler's on opin the the to or the other the product to asi asert any recod, how unlikey qualifed counsel the and and more ILM's tha towards princles, him and finds campigns sen than Court atiudes comn make forth the consumer' exprinc consumer set the would whic such asit spokern of on reason both company, impacts and have Acordingly, use spokern traing it marketing, In marketing and explantio spokern Bersn' the lega to wil arguments Dinzler's Morev, a becaus breach. regadin of in opins. a spokern parties' coverag nothig jury. of 403, delivr profed factors a materil reviwng opins the constiued After the Evidenc care he make explaing of Dinzler's marketing to the Rule tha exprinc evaluting Fedral counters telvison tesimony consider are ILM about qualifes under jury. presntaio groups, the prejudical genral lay undersig witnes. GRANTS tesimony. ANLYSI Rule 702 admisblty of 207). of The the Fedral exprt Rule Rules of tesimony. Evidenc guides United Staes v. Distrc Courts Wilson. 48 in F.3d 267, detrming 274-5 provides: (4th If scientf, technial the trye isue, of a specialzd or facts and dat, the by to the skil, in is is the the the case. form upon of has of the based product witnes facts in knowledg, tesimony tesimony (3) a fact thero the asit detrmin tesify (1) and reliaby to exprt may (2) methods, methods an if wil or education, otherwis, or and evidnc as or opin knowledg the qualifed princles princles other understa traing, an suficent to witnes exprinc, of or fact aplied reliab the the Cir. Fed. R. Evid. 702 When exprt whetr the U.S tesimony profed 137, 19 tha tesimony 431 13 S.Ct is Cir. v. not 526 requi certainly prof." tha coret" United Merl Dow ase Carmichel. the Court becaus exprt presntaio of v. tes 'the tes it of for of Staes v. contray Moreland. 437 Pharmceutils. detrming reliabty decis is Inc. how to (quoting the flexib and detrmin v. United reliabty the Staes 509 Int. Wilson. a it enjoys Trans. 48 an grants as Navistr v. of law reliabty Petrs-Main 201) citaons or to Co. does irefutabl burden Daubert detrminao.'" (4th Tire cros-examint, the "mechanist when reliabty F.3d U.S 579, court respct Fed. 274 the to 410 267, profed distrc in Corp. F.3d exprt's its ultimae Apx. (4th same 612, Cir. 617 207) (other omited). In the this case, Dinzler's Fourth like a refutabily or Daubert. noted scientf exprt exprinc is (quoting to purely 593, 13 S.Ct R. Fed Evid. for [his] exprt a result, it 702 2786). Advisory opin, tesimony is not leads Comite [his] the must (alterions 274 stil an why reliaby aplied in (quoting requi reachd, is on or at conlusi 'rely falsibty F.3d Court exprinc Note) not by 48 to exprintal. . . . does the how rathe charteizd Nevrthls, and but Wilson. exprinc the nature, in tesimony. at how basi scientf scientf "explain a suficent stricly "exprintal As like at not Wilson, method.'" U.S exprintal is in tesabily 509 Id. tesimony Circut anythig facts." no latiude is a gatekpr (193). rathe broad as functio vigorus on (quoting 2786 tesimony, As instruco serv Kumho gatekpr tesimony by Court relvant. The tesing 206) Distrc and exprt to Cir. Ther reliab (19). profed careful (4th 596, 167 "subject and the is S.Ct the is evidnc, chalengd, evidnc 14, "detrmin 42, is orignal). to [his] the A. Dinzler's traing negativ and pres of opin opin spokern tesimony negativ in behaviorl spokern' actives produce, being his In understaig a dispute genral dispute impact isue. prohibted isue. The by Court, Dinzler's therfo, the question not is to be detrmin contra. finds tha coneds Dinzler's he adequt chief the creativ fact finder Berns' opins no a unrelatd ILM's asit has e profed has coverag is whetr Dinzler exprinc how tha as to an exprt to understaig role unlikey product. is not his to pres contra how productin. Rather, shown reactions tesimony The at 4-5). he thes the film tha not has for to infer of and to consumer, He aditon, him admits 72- consumer' opin permits in telvison No. basi to inform impreson and consumer. or forecast promted. suget negativ impact necsary behavior, apel use marketing. exprinc years tha campigns whic (ECF spokern' The consumer' in consumer to interp, servic or sevnt advertismn or exprinc the roughly the advertisng and or exprinc or socilgy. outside traing his or evnts of tha productin traing coverag consumer. with traing education video belif impacts psycholg, to preaing his coneti spokern on formal scien, relats the is based no tha consumer' pres opins atiudnl any of he has by education, explaind exprinc Howevr, the negativ consumer' telvison in have coverag Dinzler's this not not has pres tesimony impacts tha impacts and exprinc Dinzler profed unfavorbly view subtly emotinal is Dinzler's opins. his spokern undergi an does inform to Dinzler's is alegdy to make Dinzler the relats genraly This this the not product. spokern product. to of the chalengd conerig do coverag perctions This exprinc in condut basi had are to tesify not about to likey asit the Dinzler fact finder to may not and how negativ tesify not genraly of products by about pres impreson suported coverag of the his the use education, of traing or a spokern in spokern 31, 201 campigns nor consumer' genraly. United E. Staes E. UNITED October advertisng impacts DOUGLAS Virgna Acordingly, unfavorbly Douglas Norflk, exprinc. STAE Miler^ Magistre Judge MILER MAGISTRE JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.