GLENWOOD FARMS, INC. v. IVEY (D.Me. 2006)

GEORGE SINGAL, District Judge

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs Glenwood's and Carrabassett's Damages Experts (Docket # 388). This Motion seeks to exclude Nancy Fannon, an economist, from testifying regarding Plaintiffs' damages. This Motion is DENIED. To the extent Defendants, via this motion, attempt to rehash the issues already decided in the Memorandum Decision on Motions to Exclude Testimony (Docket # 295), the Court incorporates the reasoning contained in that decision in its denial of the pending motion. In short, Defendant's latest motion seeking to exclude Fannon from testifying amounts to questioning the relevance and weight of that testimony. In light of the Court's ruling on other motions in limine, the Court is satisfied that Fannon's damages testimony is relevant. The issue of what weight should be accorded to that testimony is best resolved via the adversarial process, which contemplates "competing expert testimony and active cross-examination." Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi-Cola, 161 F.3d 77, 85 (1st Cir. 1998).

SO ORDERED.