Opinion
Action was brought for false advertising. Both parties filed objections to admissibility of various exhibits proffered at conclusion of hearing on motion for preliminary injunction. The District Court, Sam H. Bell, J., held that study prepared by plaintiff's expert, but proffered by defendant, would be excluded from evidence in light of defendant's prior motion in limine to exclude it and plaintiff's voluntary compliance with and reliance on that motion.
Ordered accordingly.
See also 845 F.Supp. 469.
Alan J. Ross, Philip J. Moy, Patrick R. Roche, Fay, Sharpe, Beall, Fagan, Minnich &
McKee, Walter J. Rekstis, III, Frances Floriano Goins, Timothy F. Sweeney, Amy Scott Gilchrist, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, OH, for plaintiff.
Kathryn Louise Boselli, Harry D. Cornett, Jr., Beth Whitmore, Arter & Hadden, Walter J. Rekstis, III, Frances Floriano Goins, Timothy F. Sweeney, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, OH, Roger P. Furey, Arter & Hadden, Washington, DC, Jim M. Gran, Edward H. Graham, Maytag Corp., Office of Gen. Counsel, Newton, IA, for defendant.
ORDER
SAM H. BELL, District Judge.
The Court has before it both parties' objections to the admissibility of various exhibits proffered at the conclusion of the December hearing on Royal's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Among other things, Royal objects to Hoover's proposed exhibit A27, the first of two studies prepared by Royal's expert witness, Ivan Ross. The Court agrees that this study should be excluded from evidence in light of Hoover's prior motion in limine to exclude it and Royal's voluntary compliance with and reliance on that motion.
For the sake of expediency, the Court deems it appropriate to admit all other exhibits proposed by the parties. It relies, however, only on the evidence properly before it and immediately relevant in reaching its decision on Royal's contested motion for a preliminary injunction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.