Carolina Canners Inc v. PBV Conway Myrtle Beach LLC, 4:10-cv-00598

Federal case in the District of South Carolina (Florence Division) involving Carolina Canners, Inc. as plaintiff and PBV Conway-Myrtle Beach, LLC as defendant, concerning an assets purchase and related Sales Agreement.
Defendant moved in limine to exclude eighteen categories of evidence and testimony; issues included whether witnesses could offer expert opinions or were limited to lay testimony.
Egan and Smith, timely disclosed as fact witnesses, were challenged as potential experts; Rhine was disclosed late and not deposed.
Disputes over the interpretation and meaning of the Sales Agreement, including its liquidated damages clause and parol/evidence of intent.
Dead Man’s Statute concerns were raised regarding Blackwell’s statements and whether Burnett could testify about them; the court analyzed assignee/representative status.
Court’s order: omnibus motion granted in part, denied in part; several tests and rulings on admissibility, hearsay, relevance, prejudice, and foundational issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Egan and Smith may offer lay vs expert testimony	Egan/Smith provide lay, non-technical testimony based on perception.	They are not timely disclosed as experts; exclusion appropriate.	Granted to the extent testimony exceeds lay scope.
Whether Rhine could be admitted given late disclosure and no deposition	Rhine’s testimony is pertinent; discovery compliance should permit it.	Late disclosure and lack of deposition warrant exclusion.	Granted.
Whether testimony about other parties' intentions under the Sales Agreement is hearsay	Some statements are non-hearsay or fall under exceptions; not made for truth of matters asserted.	Statements improperly offered to prove terms/intent; hearsay.	Granted to the extent of hearsay; allowed non-hearsay testimony or exceptions.
Whether the mission statement may be admitted to explain the Sales Agreement	Mission statement shows course of dealing and consistent terms.	Parol evidence rule bars such extrinsic evidence.	Denied without prejudice; admissibility to be determined at trial.
Whether evidence of financial reserves or similar financial context is admissible	Evidence shows pricing considerations tied to breach costs; relevant to damages.	Evidence marginally relevant and prejudicial; risk of confusion.	Tenth Mot. in Limine granted (precluded).

Adalman v. Baker, Watts & Co., 807 F.2d 359 (4th Cir. 1986) (discretion to exclude witness and exhibits for discovery noncompliance)
Lirette v. Popich Bros. Water Transp. Inc., 660 F.2d 142 (5th Cir. 1981) (court’s discretion to exclude late-disclosed witnesses)
Penton v. J.F. Cleckley & Co., 326 S.C. 275, 486 S.E.2d 742 (S.C. 1997) (parol evidence and contract interpretation guidance)
Long v. Conroy, 246 S.C. 225, 143 S.E.2d 459 (S.C. 1965) (statutory exception to witness competency under Dead Man’s Statute)
Davis v. KB Home of S. Carolina, Inc., 394 S.C. 116, 713 S.E.2d 799 (Ct. App. 2011) (parol evidence and contract interpretation context)
Gilliland v. Elmwood Props., 301 S.C. 295, 391 S.E.2d 577 (S.C. 1990) (parol evidence and extrinsic evidence principles)
Hernandez v. City of New York, 394 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2012) (public policy arguments considerations in evidentiary rulings)