Marine Power Holding, L.L.C. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, No. 2:2014cv00912 - Document 150 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that the 115 motion to quash trial subpoena and 131 motion to exclude Lance Watson and the Avansic report are DISMISSED AS MOOT. FURTHER ORDERED that the 134 in limine motion with respect to the prior lawsuit, [13 5] the in limine motion with respect to the alleged "bad faith" breach of contract, and 141 plaintiff's omnibus in limine motion, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a party's right to timely refile such motions in advance of th e rescheduled trial. FURTHER ORDERED that 133 defendant's in limine motions with respect to "David and Goliath" arguments and 136 Jason Vetzel's criminal history will be taken under submission on 3/9/2016. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/23/2016.(blg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Marine Power Holding, L.L.C. v. Malibu Boats, LLC Doc. 150 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MARINE POWER HOLDING, L.L.C. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 14-912 MALIBU BOATS, LLC SECTION I ORDER AND REASONS On February 19, 2016, the Court continued the trial date in the above-captioned matter and directed that a revised scheduling order be issued with a new trial date and new pretrial discovery deadlines.1 The parties had previously filed several pretrial motions, which motions are affected by the continuance of the trial date and reopening of discovery. First, plaintiff had filed a motion to quash the trial subpoena as to Benton Smallpage Jr.,2 which motion was based on a conflict between the previously scheduled trial and Mr. Smallpage’s travel plans. Because the trial date has been continued, the conflict no longer exists and the motion is moot. Second, defendant had filed a motion3 to exclude the testimony of Lance Watson and the digital forensic Avansic report based on the untimely disclosure of this witness and his opinions and the resultant prejudice to defendant. Because a new scheduling order will be issued and discovery will be reopened, defendant may address this witness and his opinions in discovery and the motion is moot. 1 R. Doc. No. 147. R. Doc. No. 115. 3 R. Doc. No. 131. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com Third, several in limine motions were filed regarding anticipated evidence or legal arguments at trial. It appears that defendant’s in limine motions with respect to the prior lawsuit4 and alleged “bad faith” breach of contract,5 and plaintiff’s omnibus in limine motion as to five areas of evidence and testimony,6 may be subject to change or refinement based on the forthcoming reopened discovery period. The Court finds it prudent to dismiss those three in limine motions without prejudice to timely reurging the issues in advance of the rescheduled trial date. However, defendant’s in limine motions with respect to “David and Goliath” arguments7 and Jason Vetzel’s criminal history8 appear to be ripe for decision; accordingly, the Court will take those two motions under submission on March 9, 2016, without oral argument. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to quash trial subpoena9 and motion to exclude Lance Watson and the Avansic report10 are DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the in limine motion with respect to the prior lawsuit,11 the in limine motion with respect to the alleged “bad faith” breach of contract,12 and plaintiff’s omnibus in limine motion,13 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a party’s right to timely refile such motions in advance of the rescheduled trial. 4 R. Doc. No. 134. R. Doc. No. 135. 6 R. Doc. No. 141. 7 R. Doc. No. 133. 8 R. Doc. No. 136. 9 R. Doc. No. 115. 10 R. Doc. No. 131. 11 R. Doc. No. 134. 12 R. Doc. No. 135. 13 R. Doc. No. 141. 5 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s in limine motions with respect to “David and Goliath” arguments14 and Jason Vetzel’s criminal history15 will be taken under submission on Wednesday, March 9, 2016. New Orleans, Louisiana, February 23, 2016. ________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 R. Doc. No. 133. R. Doc. No. 136. 3
]]>
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.
