Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:21-cv-01317
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cerveceria Modelo v. CB Brand Strategies, Judge Kaplan overruled an untimely trial objection and granted motions to seal.
The defendants’ objection to the plaintiffs’ opening-argument slides was overruled; the motions to seal identified as Docket Items 561 and 567 were granted.
What happened
In Cerveceria Modelo de México, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC, the plaintiffs showed the jury three slides during opening arguments about Constellation’s profits and stock-price growth after the parties signed a sublicense. They used the slides to argue that Constellation had benefited greatly from Modelo beers but still abused the brand.
The objection argued that the profits, financial success, and ability to pay were irrelevant because the trial concerned liability, not damages, and that the evidence unfairly prejudiced the defendants. The court noted that counsel did not object during the opening and treated that choice as a tactical decision that forfeited the objection to the opening presentation.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan overruled the untimely objection, directed the Clerk to terminate Docket Items 569 and 570, and granted the outstanding motions to seal at Docket Items 561 and 567. The ruling did not prevent later objections to evidence offered during the trial.
The detailed version
- Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-01317
- Lewis Kaplan
- Mar. 2, 2023
Background
During opening arguments in a jury trial, the plaintiffs presented three slides showing Constellation’s profits and stock-price growth during the period after the parties executed a sublicense. The plaintiffs used the slides to argue that Constellation had made substantial profits from Modelo beers but nevertheless abused the brand.
The court had instructed the jury that the trial concerned only whether the defendant was liable. The question of what would happen if liability were established, including damages, had been reserved for later proceedings.
Objection
The objection argued that evidence of the defendants’ profits, economic success, and financial resources had no relevance at that stage and was highly prejudicial. The court explained that counsel had not objected during the plaintiffs’ opening. It characterized counsel’s decision not to object as a tactical choice that forfeited the objection as to the opening presentation. The court stated that this did not prevent objections to evidence later offered during the trial.
Ruling
The court overruled the untimely objection. It directed the Clerk to terminate Docket Items 569 and 570. The court also granted the outstanding motions to seal at Docket Items 561 and 567.
The opinion is a trial-related procedural order. It does not decide the parties’ underlying liability or damages claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.