Hark'n Technologies v. Crossover Symmetry et al, No. 1:2010cv00081 - Document 163 (D. Utah 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying without prejudice 118 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 02/21/2013. (asp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH NORTHERN DIVISION HARK N TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Utah Corporation, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED CONSPIRACY vs. CROSSOVER SYMMETRY, a Colorado registered DBA; FITWORKS, INC., a Colorado corporation; and DUGGAN MORAN, an individual, Case No. 1:10-CV-81 TS Defendants. This matter is before the Court on Defendants Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Conspiracy.1 Defendants move the Court to exclude from trial any arguments or evidence of an alleged conspiracy between Duggan Morran and former employees or perceived competitors of Plaintiff Hark n Technologies, Inc. Plaintiff contends that the Court should deny Defendants Motion because it lacks specificity as to the evidence to be excluded. 1 Docket No. 118. 1 Defendants Motion is premised on their assertion that any argument or evidence of an alleged conspiracy is irrelevant and violates the proscriptions of Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The threshold requirement for the admission of evidence is that it have some probative value. 2 Rule 403 excludes otherwise relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Here, Defendants have not identified any specific items of evidence to be barred as irrelevant or improper under Rule 403. Further, to the extent Defendants seek to bar any argument or evidence demonstrating bias on the part of its fact witnesses, the Court finds such to have probative value that is not outweighed by any Rule 403 concerns. The Court will therefore deny Defendants Motion without prejudice, subject to Defendants re-raising this argument as to specific evidence at trial. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Conspiracy (Docket No. 118) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Leprino Foods Co. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 653 F.3d 1121, 1132 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. 2 2 DATED February 21, 2013. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 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.
