Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC

Background

The defendants submitted a letter motion asking the court to exclude certain evidence and arguments in advance of trial. The motion followed the court’s earlier rulings on the parties’ motions in limine, which are pretrial requests to decide whether particular evidence may be presented at trial.

The defendants argued that evidence and argument about Constellation’s alleged intent or motivations in developing, launching, and selling Corona Hard Seltzer should be excluded. They characterized the case as a breach-of-contract case concerning liability and argued that the parties’ conduct before the product’s release was irrelevant and prejudicial insofar as it addressed only intent.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to the extent that proposed expert testimony from Dr. Shellhammer was excluded, for the reasons stated in excluding proposed testimony from Mr. Kallenberger. The court denied the motion in all other respects because those matters were inappropriate for resolution through a motion in limine. The order did not provide a separate ruling on the merits of the parties’ contract dispute.

Effect

Dr. Shellhammer’s proposed expert testimony was excluded. The court’s endorsement did not exclude the other evidence and argument addressed by the motion; instead, it denied the motion as to those matters because it considered them inappropriate for this pretrial ruling.