No error in verdict form with special verdict form pertaining to damages. Evidence of other incidents of harassment by same manager relevant to and admissible for rebutting Faragher/Ellerth defense (FRE401 and 403). Liability against personnel company that performed HR functions for employer reversed, ordering a new trial as to that defendant.

Use of motions in limine to resolve non-evidentiary matters unwarranted in civil cases: "a mechanism already exists in civil actions to resolve non-evidentiary matters prior to trial-the summary-judgment motion." While employer couched the motion in terms of the comparator evidence being "irrelevant" and inadmissible under FRE401, 402, the veneer of evidentiary argument does not disguise the substance of the argument. Indeed, "if these tactics were sufficient, a litigant could raise any matter in limine, as long as he included the duplicative argument that the evidence relating to the matter at issue is irrelevant."

of the patent for ACP-501 because the patent specified that it was a method for reducing arterial cholesterol in patients not suffering from LCAT deficiency. Ward argued that this language in the patent made clear that the drug was not appropriate for patients like him. The district court ruled that the patent was inadmissible because it had been offered without foundation, and that it had nothing to do with the issues of fraud and informed consent. On appeal, the First Circuit offered a different analysis but arrived at the same outcome, holding that the Fed. R. Evid. 403 balancing test “disposes of the matter.”The First Circuit noted that the patent’s description of ACT-501 “is of absolutely no relevance to Dr. Schaefer’s alleged failure to apprise Ward of the potential risks and rewards of taking the drug through expanded access.” The Court went on to point out that even if the single sentence in the patent pointing to its exclusion for patients with LCAT deficiency could surmount Fed. R. Evid. 401’s low bar for relevancy, this is “grossly outweighed” under the Rule 403 balancing test by the likely “confusion created and time wasted” in including the entire document, which is rife with “irrelevant technicalities” and “littered with scientific jargon.” The Court colorfully described the patent’s multiple pages filled with lines of DNA sequences as an “alphabet soup,” and other pages containing “black-and-white figures that might seem like a Rorschach test to a lay jury.” Hence, the Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the patent.Practice Note: While this case is not a patent suit, it is of interest because the plaintiff tried to use a pharmaceutical patent in a medical malpractice case to show what the treating physician should have known. This is tactically related to the way in which patents are sometimes offered as evidence in product liability cases to show alternatives to the accused product or knowledge in the industry of prob

dvisory committee notes to 2015 amendment.Not surprisingly given the interconnectedness of theRule 37(e)(1) and (e)(2)inquiries, the same set of facts can oftentimes be used to satisfy both the intent to deprive and the prejudice requirements.SeeNationwide, 2019 WL 5700288, at *11– 14(relying upon similar evidence to establish both prejudice and an intent to deprive).Id. at *11 (emphasis added).Ms. Doe’s egregious actions – including many not described in this blog – supported sanctions.[1]For more information on self-collection and the need for both attorney supervision and a fail-safe backup,seeSelf-Identification and Self-Preservation: A Fool for a Client?andUnsupervised Self-Collection Predictably Led to Problems;but cf.Maker’s Mark: A Different View of Self Collection.[2]TheWilsoncourt wrote: “Two different views of ‘prejudice’ may be hypothesized[.] … Under one view, ‘prejudice’ may be taken to mean merely that the evidence is probative, similar to the concept of relevance under Fed. R. Evid. 401. Under the alternative view, prejudice may require proof that the evidence was not only probative, but that it would affirmatively support the movant’s claim. Courts in this Circuit generally require some proof of prejudice in the latter sense before sanctions will issue.”Wilson v. HH Savannah, LLC,2022 WL 3273718, at *7 n. 11 (S.D. Ga. June 1, 2022).

More Information on Available ObjectionsSignificant objections to keep in mind during a divorce or family law trial, and that are most frequent, are hearsay, relevancy, lack of foundation, cumulative, and beyond the scope. When considering relevancy objections, courts have to consider whether: (1) the evidence is generally relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and 402; and (2) does Federal Rule of Evidence 403 considerations prevent admission? Additionally, special relevancy rules may exclude the offered evidence, such as: (1) do character traits apply under rule 404 or 405; (2) do other acts rules apply under 404 (b); do habit rules apply under rule 406; and lastly, do policy exclusion rules apply under rules 407-412?Lack of foundation is another common objection.

ToolGen's second basis for its Motion to Exclude is related to Exhibit Nos. 2708, 2710, 2716, 2734, 2751, 2770, 2771, 2772, 2773, 2775, 2777, 2780, 2781, 2782, 2784, 2829, 2830, 2842, and 2845, introduced in support of Broad's Substantive Motion No. 1, and also Exhibit Nos. 2704, 2705, and 2793 introduced in support of Broad's Substantive PreliminaryMotion No. 3, and was that they were hearsay and inadmissible under FRE 801 and 802. These Exhibits all contain out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted, specifically "to prove that Broad's experiments allegedly showed successful reduction to practice of Broad's Proposed Count 2."ToolGen's third ground for its Motion to Exclude is related to Exhibits published after December 12, 2012, as being irrelevant under FRE 401 and 403 for not providing information about the state of the art at the time the application was filed. In particular, Exh. 2217, relied upon by Broad expert Dr. Seeger and allegedly pertaining to the definition of guide RNA, was relied upon in opining on obviousness and thus should be excluded ToolGen maintained.

If they are “relevant,” Kisor receives his past benefits.A VA administrative law judge held that the records were not “relevant.” Rather than define “relevant” evidence “probative” of a material issue (Fed. R. Evid. 401), the judge held that “relevant” is limited to “outcome-determinative” evidence. On appeal, the Federal Circuit concluded that the regulation is ambiguous.

Therefore, the Court finds that such evidence is not relevant to whether Defendants breached the contract because Defendants had no ability at the time or later duty to consider such evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 401- 402. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to provide post-denial evidence as proof of loss for the time period after October 22, 2013, that later time period is not related to the alleged breach in this case.

For animations, general requirements applicable to all demonstrative evidence must be shown (i.e., that the evidence is authentic, relevant, fair and accurate, and not substantially prejudicial). See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. By contrast, simulations are subjected to a heightened scrutiny appropriate for science-based evidence.

Even if economic conditions might explain pay differential in some circumstances, "Allsteel offered no evidence at trial showing how [its] cost-saving measures caused the plaintiffs to be paid less than their male comparators."2. "Other acts" evidence: The district court admitted evidence of three other women managers who were also paid less than their male counterparts, and two other women who learned (and complained about) salary information showing that men got paid more. On appeal, Allstate challenged the admission of this evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, yet the Eighth Circuit affirms. Because such evidence (also known as "me-too") "should normally be freely admitted at trial" because it makes the pay decisions more likely to be intentional.