United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND EVIDENTIARY
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiff, ” or “GEOMC”)
brought this case against Calmare Therapeutics, Incorporated
(“Defendant, ” or “CTI”), claiming
that CTI failed to pay for or return certain medical devices
that GEOMC manufactured and supplied to CTI. Complaint, ECF
No. 1; Sec. Am. Compl., ECF No. 137. A bench trial in this
matter is scheduled to begin on Monday, September 25, 2017.
has filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude the
introduction of certain evidence. Pl. Mot. in
Limine, ECF No. 191. Although CTI did not file any
motions in limine, CTI also made requests in the
joint trial memorandum regarding additional evidentiary
disputes. Specifically, CTI seeks an adverse inference and
seeks to preclude the admission of a particular trial
exhibit. Joint Trial Mem., ECF No. 190.
reasons outlined below, GEOMC's  Motion in
Limine is GRANTED. CTI's request
for an adverse inference is DENIED AS MOOT,
and CTI's request to preclude the admission of
Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 is DENIED without
prejudice to renewal in the context of trial.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
case has now been pending for over three years. Despite the
voluminous filings during that time, the underlying dispute
between the parties is relatively simple. GEOMC claims that
it manufactured and supplied certain medical devices to CTI
under an agreement entered into by the parties in 2007
(“2007 Agreement”) and that CTI breached this
agreement by failing to fully pay for those devices.
See Ruling Re: Mot. for Summ. J. at 2-7, ECF No.
187. GEOMC also claims that it entered into a security
agreement with CTI in 2012 (“2012 Security
Agreement”), which entitled GEOMC to the return of 393
devices in the event of a contractual breach. Id.
GEOMC claims that CTI failed to return those devices despite
its breach of the 2007 Agreement.
filed its initial Complaint in August 2014 and amended its
Complaint in October 2014. Compl., ECF No. 1; Am. Compl., ECF
No. 29. In September 2015, CTI sought leave to amend its
Answer in order to add numerous affirmative defenses and
counterclaims, see Def. Mot. for Leave to Am.
Compl., ECF No. 109, and GEOMC simultaneously sought leave to
amend its Amended Complaint by adding an additional claim for
breach of contract, see Pl. Cross-Mot. to Amend, ECF
No. 120. After extensive briefing from the parties, the Court
granted leave for GEOMC to file a Second Amended Complaint
and directed CTI to file a new Answer directed to that
complaint. Order, ECF No. 136.
CTI filed its Answer to GEOMC's Second Amended Complaint,
GEOMC moved to strike several affirmative defenses and
counterclaims from CTI's Answer, arguing that CTI's
new revisions improperly sought to expand the scope of the
case beyond the limited changes reflected in the Second
Amended Complaint. Pl. Mot. to Strike, ECF No. 139. The Court
granted in part and denied in part GEOMC's motion,
limiting CTI's affirmative defenses and counterclaims to
those that the Court determined would not expand the scope of
the case or result in prejudice to GEOMC. Ruling Re: Mot. to
Strike, ECF No. 144.
the Court's ruling on GEOMC's motion to strike, the
following claims remained on the part of GEOMC: Breach of
Contract, Replevin, Wrongful Detention, Conversion, Unjust
Enrichment, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act (“CUTPA”). Id. The Court,
however, struck numerous affirmative defenses and
counterclaims from CTI's answer as impermissibly and
prejudicially expanding the scope of this case. Id.
Among those defenses and counterclaims that were allowed to
remain in the case were CTI's claims that (1) damages
owed by CTI should be offset by damages owed by GEOMC and (2)
CTI “overpaid” GEOMC by the amount of $32, 000.
after the Court's ruling on GEOMC's motion to strike,
the Court issued an Order expressing concern about the
significant delay associated with this case, citing to the
numerous revisions to the scheduling order and the multiple
unsuccessful settlement conferences. Order, ECF No. 145. The
Court then set an expedited schedule “in light of the
age and relatively narrow scope of this case[, ]”
providing that trial would commence in early August.
Id.; Sched. Order, ECF No. 148. Following the
Court's Scheduling Order, the parties again requested an
extension of time to conduct limited additional discovery.
Def. Mot. for Ext. of Time, ECF No. 149. The Court granted
the extension, once again expanding the deadline for
discovery in this matter, and issued a new Scheduling Order,
resulting in the current trial date of September 25, 2017.
Scheduling Order, ECF No. 148.
the conclusion of discovery in this case, GEOMC filed a
motion for summary judgment on all claims. Pl. Mot. for Summ.
J., ECF No. 169. For the first time in this case, in
CTI's opposition to GEOMC's motion for summary
judgment, CTI argued that GEOMC owed CTI money for sales of
medical devices made in Korea under a distributorship
agreement the parties entered into in 2008 (“2008 Korea
Distributorship”). Def. Mem. in Opp., ECF No. 175.
According to CTI, this agreement constituted an amendment to
the original 2007 Agreement, through which GEOMC was
obligated to pay royalties to CTI in connection with sales of
GEOMC's medical devices in Korea. Id. GEOMC
objected to the inclusion of this argument in CTI's
opposition, noting that CTI never specifically included this
argument as a counterclaim in its Answer to the Second
Amended Complaint and that CTI never conducted any discovery
on this question. Pl. Reply Br., ECF No. 178.
Court granted in part and denied in part GEOMC's motion.
The Court granted summary judgment as to CTI's liability
for GEOMC's breach of contract claim and denied summary
judgment as to damages. Order, ECF No. 187. The Court also
granted summary judgment as to GEOMC's claims for
replevin, wrongful detention and conversion and denied
summary judgment with respect to GEOMC's CUTPA claim.
Id. In its ruling, the Court acknowledged CTI's
claim regarding device sales in Korea, but declined to
directly address the validity of this claim, noting that this
argument was not material to the questions of law at issue on
summary judgment. Id. at 22-23.
light of the Court's summary judgment ruling, the
parties' earlier disputes regarding CTI's liability
for breach of contract, replevin, wrongful detention and
unjust enrichment are no longer before the Court. The Court
has concluded that, as a matter of law, CTI is liable to
GEOMC under these various theories; the only disputes
remaining to be resolved relate to the specific amount of
damages owed in connection with CTI's violations.
pre-trial conference was held on September 13, 2017. Minute
Entry, ECF No. 193. In advance of that conference, GEOMC
submitted a motion in limine seeking to preclude
evidence related to CTI's claims regarding sales made by
GEOMC in Korea, see Pl. Mot. inLimine, ECF No. 191. The parties also submitted a
joint trial memorandum outlining evidentiary disputes
regarding (1) CTI's entitlement to an adverse inference
regarding the specific number ...