Haddonfield Foods, Inc. v. Southern Hens, Inc.
2:20-cv-00084
S.D. Miss.Mar 3, 2023Background:
- Haddonfield Foods, Inc. (HFI) is a buyer/packer-arranger; Southern Hens, Inc. (SH) is a chicken co-packer. The dispute arises from a 2014 ten-year production agreement.
- Extensive discovery produced tens of thousands of documents and many depositions; SH failed to timely produce certain audio recordings and board minutes.
- The Court granted HFI partial sanctions for SH’s discovery failures (ordering production, permitting depositions, awarding costs).
- SH filed an omnibus motion in limine seeking to exclude thirteen categories of evidence and argument at trial (e.g., references to the sanctions order, discovery disputes, recordings’ legality, SH’s net worth, employee misconduct evidence, industry standards).
- The Court applied Fed. R. Evid. 401–403 standards, granted the motion in part and denied it in part, excluding references likely to unfairly prejudice or confuse the jury (e.g., any mention of the Court’s sanctions, discovery disputes, SH’s net worth, recordings’ legality, AICPA rules, arrest video, jury "golden-rule" appeals) while allowing other categories subject to contemporaneous objections.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HFI) | Defendant's Argument (SH) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mention of Court sanctions/order | HFI does not intend to introduce the sanctions order; wants to use predicate testimony and recordings | SH: any mention of sanctions would unfairly prejudice jury | Excluded — no mention of the Court imposing sanctions |
| Discovery disputes | HFI: parameters vague; some discovery testimony relevant | SH: discovery disputes irrelevant and prejudicial | Excluded — no references to discovery disputes at trial; contemporaneous objections allowed |
| SH shareholders / size / net worth | HFI: shareholders and plant staffing may be relevant to defenses and raw-material sourcing; witnesses include shareholder reps | SH: such facts are irrelevant and would unfairly influence jury | Shareholders and size: DENIED (may be relevant); Net worth: GRANTED (excluded) |
| Allegation officers directed employees to "find problems" | HFI: has circumstantial evidence and testimony to support; relevant to motive/quality disputes | SH: theory unsupported by discovery; should be excluded | DENIED — cannot preclude on motion in limine; testimony can be impeached if inconsistent |
| Legality of recording phone calls | HFI: whether employees considered legality is probative of motive | SH: questions about legality in various states are irrelevant and prejudicial | GRANTED — evidence/law about legality of recordings excluded |
| Obligation to report recordings to SH board | HFI: may be relevant to employees’ actions | SH: irrelevant, confusing, prejudicial; not for trial-within-trial | GRANTED as to legal/ethical obligation; fact whether employee discussed recordings with board not precluded |
| AICPA ethics regarding recordings (CFO testimony) | HFI: whether CPA considered ethical duties is impeachment/credibility evidence | SH: questions imply impropriety and invite jury confusion on legal/ethical rules | GRANTED — no reference or inquiry about AICPA rules |
| Employee arrest/video (Ferry) | HFI: statements in video reflect how Ferry treated employees; probative of turnover/fear-based management | SH: unrelated personal conduct, improper character evidence under Rule 404, and confusing | GRANTED — arrest/video and statements excluded |
| Alleged racial epithets by managers | HFI: may be probative; prior deposition shows denials but WHI may ask witnesses | SH: seeks blanket exclusion | DENIED — motion improper; contemporaneous objections allowed |
| Reference to industry standards/customs | HFI: witnesses may use such terms; jury can assess credibility | SH: no specific industry-wide standards were identified in discovery | DENIED — parties may present testimony; jury decides weight |
| Ability to expand Steam Plant capacity | HFI: expert opined expansion possible | SH: speculative and possibly irrelevant after summary judgment | DENIED without prejudice — may raise objections at trial |
| Jury asked to "put themselves in HFI’s shoes" | HFI: will not use "golden-rule" appeals; wishes to question witnesses about reactions | SH: seeks to block appeals to jury empathy | GRANTED as to addressing the jury; HFI may question witnesses about their reactions |
| Offers to compromise / settlement evidence | Governed by FRE 408 | Parties should follow FRE 408 | DENIED as moot — parties must follow Rule 408 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2013) (trial court has broad discretion in assessing relevance and prejudicial effect)
- Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2006) (unfair prejudice under Rule 403 is distinct from mere adverse testimony)
- Dollar v. Long Mfg., N.C., Inc., 561 F.2d 613 (5th Cir. 1977) (prejudice must be "unfair" to justify exclusion)
- Hinojosa v. Butler, 547 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2008) (prejudice to one party is the natural consequence of adverse evidence)
- Whitehead ex rel. Whitehead v. K Mart Corp., 173 F. Supp. 2d 553 (S.D. Miss. 2000) (Rule 403 is an extraordinary measure to be used sparingly)