United States v. GLOVER
1:24-cr-00370
S.D.N.Y.Jun 3, 2025Background
- Defendant Sam Glover, VP of Sales at USC (a drug compounding pharmaceutics company and family business), is charged with conspiracy to distribute adulterated or misbranded equine drugs with intent to defraud/mislead.
- The alleged scheme involved Glover paying a veterinarian for prescriptions written without an established vet-client-patient relationship (VCPR), increasing sales for USC.
- After USC was acquired by Adamis, Glover and others allegedly sought to conceal the kickback arrangement by designating the veterinarian as a consultant.
- Both sides filed motions in limine regarding admissibility of various categories of evidence ahead of the 2025 trial; this opinion rules on those evidentiary disputes.
- The court’s ruling addresses the admissibility of prior uncharged conduct, evidence of Glover’s lawful conduct, co-conspirator statements, expert testimony, terms used at trial, and certain other trial management issues.
Issues
| Issue | Gov't Argument | Glover's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Prior Uncharged Conduct | Proffered as proof of notice, intent, and motive under 404(b) | Insufficiently related/too prejudicial or lacking notice | Granted re: Ponazuril/Pain Med & 2015 FDA financial impact; Denied/held in abeyance re: pharmacy violations, California sales; Agreements with other vets admitted |
| Use of Terms “Illegal,” “Scheme,” “Sham,” “Kickback” | Permitted as evidence of witness understanding/intent; tied to charges | Prejudicial, invades jury’s province | Denied – usage permitted given context, but parties may request limiting instruction |
| Admission of Glover’s Lawful Conduct | Generally irrelevant, unless alleging ceaseless crime | Relevant to state of mind/good faith defense | Granted – excluded evidence outside the conspiracy scope, but OK if relevant to mental state on charged conduct |
| Admissibility of Co-conspirator Statements | Should be admitted under 801(d)(2)(E) | Premature, needs case-specific foundation | Denied without prejudice – must re-raise at trial with appropriate foundation |
| Admission of Expert Testimony (Dr. Mongeluzzi) | Qualified, provides regulatory/factual background, not legal conclusions | “Regurgitates” law, gives legal conclusions | Denied – expert is qualified and testimony (with limits) is appropriate |
| Use of Certain Documentary Evidence (Policies, Drug Orders, Charts) | Relevant business records, context | Prejudicial, confusing, or premature | Granted in part (Exhibit A order email as non-hearsay), others subject to foundation/curative instructions |
| Glover’s Personal Circumstances/Punishment | Should be excluded as irrelevant/prejudicial | Family background relevant to motive, but agrees punishment not for jury | Granted as to family ties at issue, denied for all else regarding punishment, age, health, etc. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kaiser, 609 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2010) (delineates scope of admissible uncharged acts as direct evidence or under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Zhong, 26 F.4th 536 (2d Cir. 2022) (Second Circuit’s “inclusionary approach” to 404(b))
- United States v. Greer, 631 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2011) (Rule 403 balancing test for prior bad acts evidence)
- United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2011) (requirements for admissibility of co-conspirator statements)
- United States v. Bellomo, 176 F.3d 580 (2d Cir. 1999) (imperatives/commands not hearsay)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (standard for admitting expert witness testimony under FRE 702)