From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Covidien LP v. Esch

United States District Court District of Massachusetts
May 10, 2019
Civil Action No. 16-12410-NMG (D. Mass. May. 10, 2019)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 16-12410-NMG

05-10-2019

Covidien LP and Covidien Holding Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Brady Esch, Defendant.


MEMORANDUM & ORDER

GORTON, J.

At the final pretrial conference the Court announced its rulings on all pending motions and agreed to reconsider such rulings with respect to: a) plaintiff's motion in limine (#4) to preclude references to unrelated Covidien or Medtronic legal proceedings (Docket No. 239), b) defendant's motion in limine (#2) to exclude evidence, claims or legal theories not alleged in Covidien's complaint or timely disclosed in discovery (Docket No. 277, formerly Docket No. 246-4) and c) plaintiff's motion to quash improper trial subpoenas (Docket No. 273). Having done so, the Court rules as follows:

1. Evidence that Covidien reduced its ClosureFast prices during the time period in which Esch is alleged to have misappropriated confidential information while employed at Venclose is relevant and admissible. Evidence of
price reduction outside of that timeframe is not relevant to Esch's failure to mitigate damages defense. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion in limine (#4) to preclude references to unrelated Covidien or Medtronic legal proceedings (Docket No. 239) is ALLOWED subject to the stated time period restriction.

2. All features that plaintiff disclosed to defense counsel on or before June 30, 2018, (the close of fact discovery) are admissible, including evidence of plaintiff's "combination" theory. Accordingly, defendant's motion in limine (#2) to exclude evidence, claims or legal theories not alleged in Covidien's complaint or timely disclosed in discovery (Docket No. 277, formerly Docket No. 246-4) is DENIED.

3. With respect to the subpoena of Steven Coleman, the Court finds that Mr. Coleman's testimony may be relevant and because Covidien has chosen to bring suit in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and disclosed him as a potential witness, plaintiff shall make Mr. Coleman available at trial. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to quash improper trial subpoenas with respect to Steven Coleman (Docket No. 273) is DENIED.

So ordered.

/s/_________

Nathaniel M. Gorton

United States District Judge Dated May 10, 2019


Summaries of

Covidien LP v. Esch

United States District Court District of Massachusetts
May 10, 2019
Civil Action No. 16-12410-NMG (D. Mass. May. 10, 2019)
Case details for

Covidien LP v. Esch

Case Details

Full title:Covidien LP and Covidien Holding Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Brady Esch…

Court:United States District Court District of Massachusetts

Date published: May 10, 2019

Citations

Civil Action No. 16-12410-NMG (D. Mass. May. 10, 2019)