Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply International

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


April 27, 2010

UNIVAC DENTAL COMPANY, AND LACTONA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS
v.
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL, INC., DEFENDANT

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge

(Judge Conner)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2010, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 115) recommending that defendant's motions in limine (Docs. 99, 98, 100) be denied, with one exception, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that the motions in the above-captioned matter request that certain evidence be excluded at trial,*fn1 and that the magistrate judge recommended denial of defendant's motions,*fn2 without prejudice to the rights of the parties to object at trial to the admissibility of such evidence, and that the magistrate judge additionally requested more fact-specific arguments in any future motion in limine,*fn3 and it further appearing that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation,*fn4 and the court finding that there is no clear error on the face of the record,*fn5 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 115) is ADOPTED.

2. The defendant's motions in limine (Doc. 98, 99, 100) are DENIED.

3. If defendant intends to maintain its request (see Doc. 99) for a pre-trial ruling that plaintiffs may not introduce extrinsic evidence concerning matters which may be the subject of issue preclusion, then defendant is instructed to meet and confer with plaintiffs, determine what evidence plaintiffs may wish to introduce, and identify the evidence which defendant seeks to exclude. The parties are directed to make a good faith effort to narrow any areas of disagreement. They should then provide the court with a status report identifying those matters which remain disputed, along with a proposed schedule for filing briefs on the remaining disputed matters.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.