Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Golan v. Veritas Entertainment, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

August 2, 2017

RON GOLAN, et al., Plaintiff,
v.
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          E. RICHARD WEBBER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine [ECF No. 386], Defendant James R. Leininger's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Argument Regarding his Counsel's Prior Representation of Other Defendants [ECF No. 390], Defendant James R. Leininger's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Argument Regarding His Personal Monetary Wealth [ECF No. 391], and Defendant James R. Leininger's Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs' from Offering Party and Non-Party Document Productions into Evidence [ECF No. 392].

         I. Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine [ECF No. 386]

         In their motion, Plaintiffs raise thirteen motions in limine. The Court will address each individually.

         1. Jury Nullification

         Plaintiffs ask the Court to prohibit Defendants from making any arguments which could be considered jury nullification. The Court cannot make a ruling on this motion at this time, because it is too broad. It will be held in abeyance to be ruled during trial when the parties object to specific arguments.

         2. Corporate Shield

         Plaintiffs ask the Court to prohibit individual defendants from arguing they are protected from liability because they were acting on behalf of a corporation. The role of individual defendants and the corporations for which they worked is relevant to the issues in this trial. Defense counsel is prohibited from stating in opening statement, or any time after, his or her client is protected from liability because the client was acting on behalf of a corporation, without prior approval of the Court to do so. This motion will be held in abeyance until the Court makes specific rulings pending the receipt of evidence.

         3. Amount of Damages

         Plaintiffs ask the Court to prohibit Defendants from mentioning the amount of damages per call or in total. Defendants are prohibited from mentioning the amount of damages in opening statements or during the presentation of evidence before first obtaining a ruling of the Court allowing statements related to damages or evidence related to damages. The Court cannot make a determination on this issue until evidence has developed; therefore, the motion will be held in abeyance.

         4. Plaintiffs' Injuries

         Plaintiffs ask the Court to prohibit Defendants from arguing the telephone calls did not injure or harm Plaintiffs. The Court has previously determined Plaintiffs were harmed. However, this does not prohibit questioning of Plaintiffs as to any experiences related to the telephone messages. Defendants shall not argue Plaintiffs were not harmed, but will be permitted to inquire into Plaintiffs experience with the telemarketing campaign. This motion will be granted, in part, and denied, in part.

         5. Answering Machine

         Plaintiffs argue Defendants should not be allowed to introduce evidence an answering machine answered the robocalls. The Court has already determined Plaintiffs were harmed even though they did not answer the telephone call at issue. Defendants will not be permitted to argue Plaintiffs were not harmed. However, Defendants are allowed to present evidence regarding what Plaintiffs heard, who answered the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.