NBN Broad., Inc. v. Sheridan Broad. Networks, Inc.

Full title: NBN BROADCASTING, INC., Plaintiff, v. SHERIDAN BROADCASTING NETWORKS…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Oct 21, 2015

2:12cv346 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2015)

Opinion

2:12cv346

10-21-2015

NBN BROADCASTING, INC., Plaintiff, v. SHERIDAN BROADCASTING NETWORKS, INC., RONALD DAVENPORT, SR., JERRY LOPES and RONALD DAVENPORT, JR., Defendants.

David Stewart Cercone United States District Judge

Electronic Filing

MEMORANDUM ORDER

AND NOW, this 21^st day of October, 2015, upon due consideration of defendants' motion in limine and the parties' submissions in conjunction therewith, IT IS ORDERED that [143] the motion be, and the same hereby is, granted in part and denied in part.

The motion is granted as follows: defendants are precluded from introducing the potential evidence identified in section "E" of the motion to the extent it pertains to the proposal for AURN to hire Ronald Davenport, Sr., Kathleen Gersna, Catherine Assenti, Michael O'Lear, Christopher Ray, Susan Davenport Austin and Ronald Davenport, Jr. Given that these individuals were never hired or otherwise directly placed on AURN's payroll, the probative value of the proffered information substantially is outweighed by its potential to (1) create undue prejudice and (2) mislead the jury. These deleterious effects only are exacerbated when the cumulative nature of this evidence as it relates to the admissible evidence plaintiff has proffered as to motive and intent is taken into account;

The motion is denied as to the meeting minutes and proffer of testimony concerning "the second motion" that pertained to the co-signing of AURN checks - provided any such submission/proffer has been redacted/restricted so as to exclude information pertaining to the proposal for hiring employees;

The motion also is granted as to Getzler Henrich's advice to Sheridan. The inferences and conclusions plaintiff draws and seeks to have the jury infer from this assessment and Sheridan's supposed decision not to follow that advice are grounded in speculation and conjecture. Consequently, they are irrelevant and alternatively any probative value this evidence has substantially is outweighed by its potential to confuse and mislead the jury; and

The motion is denied in all other aspects.

s/David Stewart Cercone

David Stewart Cercone

United States District Judge
cc: Roy W. Arnold, Esquire

Mathew M. Wrenshall, Esquire

Joseph A. Katarincic, Esquire

Joseph M. Donley, Esquire

Vincent M. Roskovensky, Esquire

(Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail)