Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-0485, (CONSOLIDATED).
September 15, 2009
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15h day of September, 2009, upon consideration of the order of court (Doc. 599) dated September 14th, 2009, wherein the court excluded evidence of "Bridgeport's decision to use catalog numbers and product numbers for its connectors that may appear similar to the numbers Arlington uses for its connectors," (id. at 1-2), and the facsimile received from counsel for Arlington, which was transmitted on the date hereof, and which seeks to "clarify Arlington's statement that it would not seek to introduce evidence concerning the similarities between Bridgeport Fittings' and Arlington's product catalog numbers," and upon further consideration of the argument conducted on the record on the date hereof, and it appearing that evidence of Bridgeport's Whipper-Snap catalog numbers — and their comparison to Arlington's catalog numbers — is relevant to the totality inquiry required by In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and the damages calculation required by Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Brothers Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978), and that a district court has the inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory orders "when it is consonant with justice to do so," United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973); Alea N. Am. Ins. Co. v. Salem Masonry Co. 301 F. App'x 119, 121 (3d Cir. 2008), it is hereby ORDERED that:
For clarity of the record, the facsimile is attached as Exhibit A to this order.
Bridgeport filed a motion in limine (Doc. 478 ¶ 2) on June 25, 2009 to exclude evidence comparing its catalog numbers with those of Arlington's. In its brief in opposition to this motion, Arlington stated that it "did not seek to introduce evidence related to the similarities between Bridgeport's and Arlington's product or catalog numbers." (Doc. 492 at 2 n. 1.) Accordingly, the court did not consider the extent to which the evidence in question was relevant, but simply relied upon Arlington's statement and granted Bridgeport's motion in limine. (See Doc. 599 at 2.) In addition, the court's order (Doc. 599) was issued prior to jury selection, on the morning of trial. Arlington's facsimile was transmitted to the court approximately twenty-four hours later, and a ruling was required before Arlington's first witness, Thomas Gretz, took the stand. Thus, although the court is sympathetic to the time constraints under which Bridgeport was operating in order to respond to the facsimile, the merits of the evidentiary objection were presented both during the initial briefing, (see Doc. 485 at 8-9, 19-22), and during oral argument.
1. The facsimile received from counsel, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is CONSTRUED as a motion for reconsideration as is GRANTED as so construed.
2. The provision contained in the order of court (Doc. 599) dated September 14, 2009, which granted Bridgeport's motion to exclude evidence that the "catalog numbers and product numbers for its connectors . . . may appear similar to the numbers Arlington uses for its connectors" is VACATED. Arlington witness Thomas Gretz shall be permitted to present a comparison of the parties' catalog numbers, but Arlington shall not be permitted to present evidence of e-mails exchanged between Bridgeport employees, wherein Bridgeport's product numbers were discussed, (see Exhibit A (describing e-mail evidence Arlington agreed not to offer at trial)).
3. All other provisions addressed in the order of court (Doc. 599) dated September 14, 2009 shall remain in effect except as modified herein.
CONFIDENTIAL/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
TO: The Honorable Judge Conner (717) 221-3949 FROM: Robert J. Tribeck, Esquire Fax # ____________________________________ ____________________________ ___________________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________ Total number of pages, including this cover sheet: 3[] Original will be sent by mail (if checked)
Additional Comments/Notes/Instructions:
Please see attached correspondence to the Court.
If you do not receive all pages or have any problems with reception, please call my secretary, Jodie Koons, at (717) 231-6656. CONFIDENTIALITY/NOTICE: This facsimile contains confidential information which may also be legally privileged and which is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this facsimile, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopicd information may be strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the entire facsimile to us at the above address at our cost via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank You!