Raison D'Etre Bakery LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company

Background

This final pretrial conference order addresses the upcoming jury trial in Raison D’Etre Bakery LLC’s insurance-contract case against Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company. Jury selection was set for September 8, 2025, with the trial expected to last no more than six court days. Each side received up to 13 hours to present its case. The court also imposed notice requirements for witnesses, exhibits, and demonstratives.

The court identified the witnesses each side intended to call and ruled that no other witnesses could be called. The order also addressed written discovery, exhibits, hearsay, summaries of records, and evidentiary foundation. The court stated that it would not rule on disputed exhibits until the parties submitted a supplemental joint exhibit list.

Raison’s motions in limine

Raison’s first motion sought to exclude evidence and argument concerning the percentage of its products sold to Albertsons that allegedly remained unsold. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company’s expert Lisa Morris originally calculated the figure as 25.46%, but acknowledged that she had miscalculated it and provided an updated calculation showing that 22.79% of the product remained in January 2022. The court held that the updated calculation had a sufficient factual basis and that disputes about the underlying data went to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. The court denied the motion, but Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company may not refer to the incorrect 25.46% figure.

Raison’s second motion sought to exclude Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company expert Alex Balian’s testimony as duplicative of expert Gary White’s testimony. The court found substantial overlap but also identified different points and areas of emphasis in the experts’ opinions. Because of the trial’s strict time limits, the court declined to exclude the testimony as cumulative and denied the motion.

Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company’s motions in limine

The court denied the motion to exclude Gloria Villareal’s testimony about whether Albertsons divisions had an internal commitment to purchase at least 95% of the forecasted amount. The court held that the conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the jury.

The court denied most of the motion seeking to bar Raison from using statements that portrayed Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company negatively. The court explained that Raison could characterize the coverage decision as wrong or unreasonable when relevant to the contract claim, but the handling of the insurance claim’s state of mind was no longer at issue because the bad-faith claim had been dismissed. Raison may not use the term “bad faith” to describe its claim. The court also stated that it would consider a proper objection if evidence were offered only to suggest good or bad faith, and it directed the parties to discuss a limiting jury instruction.

The court considered together Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company’s motions to exclude Raison’s accounting experts James Kinsel and Jacqueline Smart. It held that disputes over the 2020 sales forecasts and the experts’ reliance on those forecasts were subjects for cross-examination, not grounds for exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court also rejected the argument that the experts’ opinions were cumulative under Rule 403. The court denied the motions except as to Smart’s supplemental opinion on prejudgment interest. Because Raison represented that Smart would not testify about prejudgment interest, and because the court had determined that any prejudgment interest in this non-liquidated-damages contract case was for the court rather than the jury, the court granted the motion to exclude that opinion from trial.

Discovery and exhibits

The court overruled Raison’s objections to specified answers to interrogatories concerning rebuilding expenses and when supporting information was submitted to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company. The responses were to be used without the stricken objection text. Raison did not propose to use any discovery responses.

The court provided guidance on hearsay and business records. It stated that emails are not automatically business records and that the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) must be established. It also stated that summaries may be admitted under Rule 1006 if the underlying documents are admissible and that foundation objections may be raised again at trial if the required foundation is not supplied.

Consequential damages

The court held that Raison’s consequential-damages theory was precluded under Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Raison’s initial disclosures mentioned consequential damages but did not provide a calculation or supporting details. Raison did not supplement those disclosures, and its response to a damages interrogatory did not itemize the consequential damages. The court found no substantial justification for the failure and determined that it was not harmless because Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company would have needed discovery and expert testimony concerning the claim.

The court also expressed doubt that Raison had sufficient evidence to establish the consequential-damages theory as a matter of law. Raison’s proposed theory involved additional capital allegedly provided by its owner after Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company’s payment and alleged lost opportunities for future and expanded sales. The court found that proving those losses would require showing that the opportunities were more than speculative, while Raison intended to rely only on testimony from its owners and officers, without expert testimony or analysis. Raison may not present evidence or argument on consequential damages, and the jury will not receive an instruction on them.

Disposition

Judge Edward Chen denied Raison’s first and second motions in limine, subject to the stated limitation on the incorrect percentage figure. He denied Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company’s motion concerning the 95% purchase-obligation evidence and denied its motion concerning pejorative statements except for the prohibition on using “bad faith” to describe the claim. He denied the motions concerning Kinsel and Smart’s testimony except that he granted the motion to exclude Smart’s prejudgment-interest opinion. He overruled the specified discovery objections and precluded Raison’s consequential-damages theory under Rules 26 and 37.