Houserman v. Comtech Telecomms. Corp.

519 F.Supp.3d 863

Lynne HOUSERMAN, Plaintiff,

v.COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Fred Kornberg, and Michael D. Porcelain, Defendants.

TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., Plaintiff,

v.Lynne Houserman and Motorola Solutions, Inc., Defendants.

NO. 2:19-CV-00336-RAJ

NO. 2:19-CV-00644-RAJ

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle.

Signed February 9, 2021

Angelo J. Calfo, Gabriel Reilly-Bates, Henry Charles Phillips, Kristin W. Silverman, Patricia A. Eakes, Calfo Eakes LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff Lynne Houserman.

Alyson Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, Charles Philip Sucher, Pro Hac Vice, David M. Fish, Pro Hac Vice, Harris Fischman, Pro Hac Vice, Megan Gao, Pro Hac Vice, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, New York, NY, Martha Goodman, Pro Hac Vice, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC, James P. Savitt, Michele Lynn Stephen, Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff TeleCommunication Systems Inc.

Alyson Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, Charles Philip Sucher, Pro Hac Vice, David M. Fish, Pro Hac Vice, Harris Fischman, Pro Hac Vice, Megan Gao, Pro Hac Vice, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, New York, NY, Martha Goodman, Pro Hac Vice, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC, James P. Savitt, Michele Lynn Stephen, Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP, Kathryn S. Rosen, Kristina Markosova, Matthew R. Jedreski, Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle, WA, Paula L. Lehmann, Davis Wright Tremaine, Bellevue, WA, for Defendant Comtech Telecommunications Corporation.

Alyson Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, Charles Philip Sucher, Pro Hac Vice, David M. Fish, Pro Hac Vice, Megan Gao, Pro Hac Vice, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, New York, NY, Martha Goodman, Pro Hac Vice, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC, James P. Savitt, Michele Lynn Stephen, Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP, Kathryn S. Rosen, Kristina Markosova, Matthew R. Jedreski, Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle, WA, Paula L. Lehmann, Davis Wright Tremaine, Bellevue, WA, for Defendants Fred Kornberg, Michael D. Porcelain.

Angelo J. Calfo, Gabriel Reilly-Bates, Henry Charles Phillips, Kristin W. Silverman, Calfo Eakes LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendants Lynne Houserman, Motorola Solutions Inc.

ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Richard A. Jones, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ motions in limine. Dkt. ## 164, 166. Having reviewed the motions, the record, and files therein, the Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary.

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motions.

II. BACKGROUND

This matter is scheduled for a jury trial on March 15, 2021. Dkt. # 171. Lynne Houserman and Motorola Solutions Inc. ("Motorola") filed motions in limine on January 4, 2021. Dkt. # 164. The same day, TeleCommunication Systems ("TCS"), Comtech Telecommunications Corp. ("Comtech"), Michael Porcelain, and Fred Kornberg (collectively, "Comtech Parties") filed their motions in limine. Dkt. # 166. The details of the consolidated cases are set forth in the Court's order on the parties’ motions for summary judgment and will not be repeated here. See Dkt. ## 163, 176.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Parties may file motions in limine before or during trial "to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered." Luce v. United States , 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984). To decide motions in limine , the Court is generally guided by Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403. Specifically, the Court considers whether evidence "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence" and whether "the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. However, the Court may exclude relevant evidence if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403.

IV. DISCUSSION

The findings and conclusions in this order, like all rulings in limine , are preliminary and can be revisited at trial based on the facts and evidence as they are actually presented. See, e.g. , Luce , 469 U.S. at 41, 105 S.Ct. 460 (explaining that a ruling in limine "is subject to change when the case unfolds, particularly if the actual testimony differs from what was contained in the proffer. Indeed even if nothing unexpected happens at trial, the district judge is free, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling."). Subject to these principles, the Court issues these rulings for the guidance of the parties.

A. Ms. Houserman and Motorola's Motions in Limine

i. Ms. Houserman and Motorola's Motion in Limine No. 1

Ms. Houserman and Motorola seek to prohibit the Comtech Parties from cross-examining Ms. Houserman's expert witness, Gary Goolsby, about allegations of fraud involving Arthur Anderson clients (including but not limited to Enron, Sunbeam, and Waste Management), the surrounding publicity, and the reasons for Mr. Goolsby's removal from Arthur Anderson. Dkt. # 164 at 2-3. Ms. Houserman claims that these matters are irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and pose a danger of confusing the issues and wasting time with "mini-trials." Id. at 4.

The Comtech Parties counter that such matters related to Mr. Goolsby's professional background are probative of his qualifications, his credibility, and the reliability of his opinions with respect to accounting misconduct in this case. Dkt. # 174 at 7. Mr. Goolsby worked at Arthur Anderson as a partner for 28 years. Id. He served as Managing Partner of Global Risk Management at the company during the period of alleged misconduct and was ultimately removed from his leadership position for his alleged role in the destruction of Enron-related documents. Id. ; Dkt. # 175-5 at 2. The Court finds cross-examination with respect to Mr. Goolsby's professional background to be probative of his qualifications and his reliability. The Court finds this cross-examination to be relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The court will not permit or tolerate this examination to proceed to a mini-trial on Mr. Goolsby's professional background. And the Court expects limited examination on this topic. If the parties desire a limiting instruction on the scope of this examination, it should be submitted for review in advance of the trial. The motion is DENIED .

ii. Ms. Houserman and Motorola's Motion in Limine No. 2

Ms. Houserman next seeks an order prohibiting evidence, arguments, or questioning on the issue of Motorola's attempted acquisitions of TCS/Comtech on several occasions beginning in 2015. Dkt. # 164 at 5. The Comtech Parties claim that such evidence is probative of Motorola's "intent and motive to tortiously interfere with TCS's contract with Houserman and with TCS’ customer relationships with South Dakota and GDIT." Dkt. # 174 at 11. The Court's order on the parties’ motions for summary judgment significantly limits the scope of relevance for this evidence because the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Ms. Houserman and Motorola for the tortious interference claims with respect to South Dakota and GDIT. Dkt. # 176. The Court also limited the scope of the breach of contract claim to the confidentiality provision. Id. The Court finds, however, that given this limited scope of applicability, the Comtech Parties’ evidence with respect to Motorola's acquisition attempts of TCS/Comtech is relevant background information as it goes to notice and intent of the claim of tortious interference for the jury to consider. The motion is DENIED .

iii. Ms. Houserman and Motorola's Motion in Limine No. 3

Ms. Houserman and Motorola move to exclude TCS Exhibit 36, which is an email thread between Bill Mertka (Motorola Senior Product Planning Consultant) and Tom Guthrie (Motorola's Vice President of Public Safety Solutions), copying three Motorola sales directors. Dkt. # 164 at 7. In the email, Mertka discusses a recent meeting with another company and says that while he is "not sure about them," he recommends that Motorola "play along with this a little while longer, if for no other reason for us to ‘get a look under the hood’ and see what their solution is all about." Dkt. # 165-3 at 3. The Comtech Parties assert that this email is admissible "as a party admission, under the business records exception, and is probative of [Motorola's] intent to expand in the 911 space and motivation to grow its call handling business." Dkt. # 174 at 12.

The email thread between Motorola executives does not relate to or mention Comtech, and neither Mertka nor Guthrie have been deposed or are noted as witnesses by the Comtech Parties. Dkt. # 164 at 7. Ms. Houserman and Motorola argue that the email is (1) irrelevant, (2) inadmissible under Rule 404(b)(1) prohibiting evidence of other acts to prove a person's character, (3) inadmissible hearsay, and (4) unduly prejudicial. This exhibit presents evidence that is irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, calls for speculation and there is insufficient foundation for its admissibility. The motion is GRANTED .

iv. Ms. Houserman and Motorola's Motion in Limine Nos. 4 & 6

In the fourth motion in limine , Ms. Houserman and Motorola seek to bar argument, evidence, or questioning regarding any arrangements relating to Ms. Houserman's payment of attorneys’ fees, which they claim is irrelevant to any of the claims or defenses at issue. Dkt. # 164 at 9. In the sixth motion, Ms. Houserman seeks to bar evidence regarding Motorola's indemnification of her in connection with lawsuits arising from restrictive covenants with previous employers. Dkt. # 164 at 10. She argues that (1) the indemnification agreement is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue; (2) its probative value is outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 ;...