United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
A JACKSON JUDGE
the Court is Quality Toxicology, LLC's
("Defendant") Motion for a New Trial (Doc.
133). Acadian Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC
("Plaintiff) opposes the motion. (Doc. 140). Oral
argument is not required. For the reasons stated below,
Defendant's motion is DENIED.
matter arises out of circumstances which have been previously
set forth in the Court's Order addressing Plaintiffs
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 76). In short,
Plaintiff claimed that Defendant breached contracts relating
to several business agreements for the referral and testing
of urine samples. (Doc. 76). At the trial, the jury returned
a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, and awarded damages in the
amount of $635, 032.23 and $269, 706.50 for breaches of
contractual obligations. (Doc. 105). Defendant now brings a
motion for a new trial.
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(1)(A) provides that the court
"may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the
issues - and to any party - . ., after a jury trial, for any
reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in
an action at law in federal court." Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(a)(1)(A). "The decision to grant or deny a motion for
new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
. ." Pryor v. Trane Co., 138 F.3d 1024, 1026
(5th Cir. 1998).
Testimony of John McFadden
claims that this Court erred when it declined to allow the
jury to consider the testimony of John McFadden. (Doc. 133-1
at par. 1). The Court barred any mention during trial of
Toxnet Diagnostic Laboratories ("Toxnet"), which is
alleged to be a company started by current employees of
Acadian Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC and prior employees of
Quality Toxicology, LLC. (Doc. 97 at pp. 4-5). The Court
reasoned that the mention of Toxnet would be unduly
prejudicial to Plaintiff, and a waste of time under
Fed.R.Evid. 403. (Id. at p. 5).
Court heard McFadden's proffered testimony, the subject
of which was Toxnet, and the circumstances surrounding its
creation. (Doc. 114). Despite Defendant's request, the
Court declined to reconsider its prior ruling on the
admissibility of evidence relating to Toxnet. (Id.
at p. 14).
grant or denial of a motion in limine is fully within the
discretion of the trial Court. Hesling u. CSX Transp..,
Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 643 (5th Cir. 2005). Having found
that the proffered testimony pertained to Toxnet, the Court
declined to allow McFadden to testify. Defendant offered no
further justification for the admission of testimony, which
covered topics previously barred by the Court's ruling on
Plaintiffs motion in limine. (Doc. 97). Plaintiffs request
for a new trial based on the exclusion of McFadden's
proffered testimony is DENIED.
next claims that the Court misrepresented certain statements
as "established facts" when it instructed the jury
that Plaintiff referred urine samples to Defendant in 2013.
(Doc. 113 at p. 103). Defendant claims that the testimony of
Kevin Hanley, owner of Acadian Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC,
directly contradicted this statement. (Id.).
argument lacks merit. Presumably after reviewing the evidence
and the proposed testimony of Hanley, the parties submitted a
document titled "Proposed Joint Jury
Instructions, Jury Interrogatories, Verdict Form and Special
Voir Dire." (Doc. 87) (emphasis added). In this joint
filing, under the title "Summary of the ...