Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 21, 2024

Equinox F&B, Inc. v. Roots Pressed Juices LLC

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:22-cv-00681
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EvidenceCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Equinox F&B v. Roots Pressed Juices, Judge Subramanian denied without prejudice Equinox’s motions in limine, allowing trial objections to evidence.

Who this affects

Equinox F&B, Inc. and Roots Pressed Juices LLC, particularly their presentation and objections to evidence at the bench trial.

What happened

In Equinox F&B, Inc. v. Roots Pressed Juices LLC, Equinox asked the court to block Roots from presenting evidence about its claimed damages and alleged theft from its cafes.

The court declined to exclude the damages documents at this stage because a witness might establish that they qualify as business records. It also found that testimony about alleged theft might be relevant, and noted that the case will be decided in a bench trial without a jury. Equinox may object to either type of evidence at trial.

Judge Arun Subramanian denied Equinox’s motions in limine without prejudice and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 71.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Equinox F&B, Inc. v. Roots Pressed Juices LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00681
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Mar. 21, 2024

Background

Equinox filed motions in limine, which are requests made before trial to limit or exclude evidence. The motions concerned evidence that Roots Pressed Juices LLC might offer about its claimed damages and alleged theft from the Roots cafes. The court also relied on reasons stated during the March 18, 2024 conference.

Rulings on the Evidence

The court denied Equinox’s request to categorically exclude Roots’s damages evidence. Equinox argued that the evidence was inadmissible hearsay. The court explained that an invoice or other business record may be admitted for the truth of its contents if a custodian or another qualified witness testifies under oath that the document was prepared during regularly conducted business activity and that creating such documents was the business’s regular practice. Roots represented that Mr. Rodgers could provide that foundation. The court therefore found no reason to exclude the documents before trial. Equinox may renew its objection at trial, and the documents will not be considered if Roots cannot establish their admissibility.

The court also denied Equinox’s request to exclude testimony about alleged theft from the Roots cafes. The court found that the testimony had at least some possible relevance. Because the case will be tried without a jury, the court said there was no concern about juror confusion or potential prejudice. Equinox may object at trial if Roots does not demonstrate relevance, and the court will consider the objection when deciding what weight, if any, to give the evidence.

Disposition

Judge Arun Subramanian denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motions in limine. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 71.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.