Summary
holding that "proposed expert testimony regarding the elements of a franchise agreement and their alleged absence here does not meet the standard of Rule 702" because "neither of the elements of a franchise agreement requires knowledge beyond the ken of the average juror" and there was "nothing ... to believe that the jurors would be assisted (rather than improperly swayed) by the testimony of the expert"
Summary of this case from AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.Opinion
98 Civ. 722 (FM)
July 11, 2001
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
This action arises from a contract pursuant to which plaintiff Palazzetti Import/Export, Inc. ("Palazzetti") licensed defendants Gregory P. Morson and the Morson Group, Inc. d/b/a The Morson Collection (together, "Morson") to use the Palazzetti name for a furniture store in Boston, Massachusetts. By the letter of its counsel Dan L. Johnston, Esq., dated July 2, 2001 ("Johnston Letter"), Morson moves in limine to exclude a portion of Palazzetti's proposed Exhibit 12, a letter from Gregory P. Morson to his counsel at that time, Eric Davis, Esq. The letter, and Morson's present counsel's objections to its admission were the subject of a pretrial conference before former Magistrate Judge Sharon Grubin. (See Transcript of October 27, 1999 Conference attached as Exhibit A to the Johnston Letter). At that conference, Judge Grubin clearly overruled Morson's counsel's objections, finding that Morson's attorney-client privilege had been waived. As Judge Grubin's ruling has become the law of this case, and because, furthermore, nothing in the Johnston letter leads me to believe that her ruling was in any way erroneous, counsel's application to revisit the admissibility of Exhibit 12 or to reframe the issue as one of relevance rather than privilege is denied.
SO ORDERED.