Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corporation, Civil Action No. 2010-0976

Background

This is a District of Columbia evidentiary ruling resolving multiple motions in limine in United States ex rel. Floyd Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp. and Lance Armstrong; issues concern admissibility of evidence at a False Claims Act trial.
Central factual context: USPS sponsored the Tailwind/USPS cycling team; the Government alleges Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and made false statements that induced or maintained USPS sponsorship.
Several categories of contested evidence: references to treble damages/penalties, relator Landis’s character and motive, PED use by non‑USPS riders, Armstrong’s past statements and media (including The Armstrong Lie and a USADA decision), prior sponsors’ conduct, various witness testimonies, and advertising-agency valuation reports (FCB and Campbell Ewald).
The Court evaluates relevance, hearsay exceptions (business records; adoptive admissions), Rule 403 balancing, Rule 30(b)(6) limits, and impeachment/use-of-exhibits doctrines.
The opinion grants, denies, or partially grants motions in limine—excluding jury references to treble damages, limiting certain hearsay and report evidence, allowing targeted impeachment and testimony on relevance to statute of limitations, damages, and credibility.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Treble damages / civil penalties admissibility	Exclude references because jury must only find actual damages; multiplier decided by court	N/A (motion by Government)	Granted — exclude references to trebling/penalties to jury (Cook County principle).
Selective prosecution references	Government sought exclusion	Armstrong clarified he will not pursue selective prosecution	Denied as moot.
Relator Landis’s character/motivation	Exclude character/motivation evidence and profit motive if Landis won't testify	Armstrong wants to call Landis; impeachment for bias permitted	Denied; Landis may be called for substantive topics and impeached for bias within Rule 403/611 limits.
PED use by non‑USPS riders	Exclude broader PED evidence as irrelevant/prejudicial	Relevant to Armstrong's statute of limitations defense and materiality	Granted in part/Denied in part — contemporaneous non‑USPS PED use admissible for limitations/materiality; non‑contemporaneous use limited under Rule 403.
Government’s proof of actual damages	Government has framework to calculate non‑speculative damages	Armstrong argues theory is impermissible/speculative	Denied — Court finds Government provided a sufficiently non‑speculative framework.
USADA decision admissibility	Exclude as hearsay and prejudicial	Govt will use only for impeachment/refreshing recollection, not in case‑in‑chief	Deferred — objections reserved until offered; use limited to impeachment/refreshing.
Contradicting Rule 30(b)(6) testimony	Exclude evidence that contradicts DOJ paralegal 30(b)(6) designee	Govt may present additional or differing evidence	Denied — 30(b)(6) testimony admissible but does not absolutely bind party; late ambush evidence may be excluded.
Evidence re: other sponsors (Trek, Nike, etc.)	Exclude as irrelevant/prejudicial	Relevant to damages (brand harm) and to what Government or sponsors knew (limitations)	Denied — admissible for damages and limitations; Rule 403 cautions to avoid undue delay/cumulativeness.
Car accident / Betsy Andreu / Greg LeMond testimony	Exclude as irrelevant or unduly prejudicial	Govt: accident relevant to truthfulness if put in issue; Andreu/LeMond heard Armstrong statements about PEDs	Denied — accident may be used on cross for truthfulness; Andreu/LeMond admissible as party‑opponent statements relevant to limitations.
The Armstrong Lie documentary	Exclude as irrelevant and prejudicial (post‑sponsorship statements)	Govt: contains statements about sponsorship period and concealment relevant to limitations/materiality	Denied — portions admissible; objections to specific segments to be revisited at trial.
Non‑PED past evidence	Broad exclusion sought by Armstrong	Govt: too sweeping; admissibility depends on particular items	Reserved — Court will assess at trial and enforce Rule 403 to prevent character‑driven trial.
FCB and Campbell Ewald valuation reports	Exclude as hearsay/confusing	Reports are relevant to damages and valuation methodology	Granted in part/Denied in part — whole reports excluded (not business records); specific report statements that USPS unambiguously adopted admissible; experts may rely on reports under Rule 703.

Key Cases Cited

Cook Cty. v. United States ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119 (Sup. Ct.) (jury returns actual damages; court sets trebling/penalties)
Brooks v. Cook, 938 F.2d 1048 (9th Cir.) (error to instruct jury it will treble damages)
HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank, 22 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.) (mentioning treble damages provisions improper)
Rainey v. American Forest & Paper Ass’n, 26 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.D.C.) (discussing limits on submitting contradicting 30(b)(6) affidavits; ambush concern)
Vehicle Mkt. Research, Inc. v. Mitchell Int’l, Inc., 839 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir.) (30(b)(6) testimony does not absolutely bind the entity)
Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (Sup. Ct.) (business‑records exception requires routine/systematic entries)
Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.) (public statements can support fraudulent‑inducement theories)
Sea‑Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int’l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808 (9th Cir.) (internal statements may be adoptive admissions when adopted unambiguously)