Steves and Sons, Inc. v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.
3:16-cv-00545
| E.D. Va. | Jan 10, 2018Background
- Steves & Sons sued JELD‑WEN under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, alleging JELD‑WEN’s 2012 acquisition of CraftMaster substantially lessened competition and harmed Steves.
- Steves seeks future lost‑profits damages tied to JELD‑WEN’s notice it will not renew a long‑term doorskin supply agreement expiring September 2021.
- Steves disclosed lay witnesses who will testify about: (1) importance of interior molded doorskins to Steves’ manufacturing; (2) significance of that business to Steves overall; (3) efforts to secure alternative doorskin suppliers; (4) expectations about obtaining a stable doorskin supply after 2021; and (5) harm from uncertainty about future supply and claims that non‑party witnesses will confirm lack of commercially viable supply in 2021.
- JELD‑WEN moved in limine to exclude any lay testimony opining Steves will not remain viable or will go out of business after 2021, arguing Rules 602, 701, and 403 bar speculative lay predictions.
- The court analyzed admissibility under Rules 602 and 701 (permitting fact‑based lay opinion tied to personal knowledge) and Rule 403 (excluding evidence if unfairly prejudicial or misleading), reserving many determinations for trial depending on foundation and question wording.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of testimony about (1) importance of doorskins to operations and (2) value of molded‑door business | Steves: company witnesses have personal knowledge of operations and finances and may testify | JELD‑WEN: such testimony is lay opinion but admissible? (conceded admissible for first three categories) | Admissible — Court denied motion as to categories 1–2 (witnesses have personal knowledge) |
| Admissibility of testimony about (3) efforts to secure alternative suppliers | Steves: witnesses personally involved and can recount negotiations and efforts | JELD‑WEN: factual recounting is OK but any opinion about future results would be speculative | Admissible as factual testimony about past efforts; motion denied as to category 3 |
| Admissibility of testimony about (4) witnesses’ expectations re: obtaining stable supply after 2021 | Steves: expectations grounded in witnesses’ experience and past supplier interactions | JELD‑WEN: expectations require predicting future market events and lack personal knowledge → speculative under Rules 602/701 | Conditionally admissible — testimony based on existing, perceived historical facts is allowed; predictive/speculative testimony about future events is excluded. Decision reserved for trial based on foundation and exact questioning |
| Admissibility of testimony about (5) harm from uncertainty and claim Steves will lack a commercially viable supply in 2021; Rule 403 risk | Steves: testimony about harm tied to past and present events supports liability and damages | JELD‑WEN: future‑oriented evidence invites juror speculation and low probative value; Rule 403 exclusion warranted | Mixed ruling — past and present harm testimony admissible; testimony projecting future harm or asserting Steves will be non‑viable in 2021 is speculative and may be excluded under Rules 701/403 depending on foundation and questioning at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Wanzer, 897 F.2d 703 (4th Cir. 1990) (lay opinion admissible when based on perceived historical or narrative facts)
- Lord & Taylor, LLC v. White Flint, L.P., 849 F.3d 567 (4th Cir. 2017) (company official may project costs/profits based on on‑the‑job experience)
- Von der Ruhr v. Immtech Int'l, Inc., 570 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2009) (lay testimony on lost profits allowed if grounded in particularized company knowledge; forecasts about untested ventures excluded)
- Nat'l Hispanic Circus, Inc. v. Rex Trucking, Inc., 414 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2005) (corporate officers may testify on business matters like industry practices and pricing)
- Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153 (3d Cir. 1993) (business owner may testify about future lost profits when grounded in past contracts, costs, and competition)
- Donlin v. Philips Lighting N. Am. Corp., 581 F.3d 73 (3d Cir. 2009) (future business projections from witnesses require intimate, thorough knowledge from tenure or authority)
- Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Simple Cell Inc., 248 F. Supp. 3d 663 (D. Md. 2017) (lay witnesses may estimate future damages when based on company records and experience)