Wolff v. Tomahawk Manufacturing, 3:21-cv-00880

Plaintiff James B. Wolff sued his former employer, Tomahawk Manufacturing, Inc. (“Tomahawk”), asserting claims for breach of contract (NDA), disability discrimination, and retaliation (including whistleblowing and reporting a safety violation).
Tomahawk brought a counterclaim alleging Wolff breached his employee duty of loyalty by disclosing confidential information, which Tomahawk asserts belonged to the company or its affiliate, Formtec LLC.
Procedurally, the court is addressing the parties’ motions in limine—rulings that set boundaries for what evidence or arguments each side may present at trial.
The court’s tentative order rules on whether Tomahawk can seek damages for intellectual property owned by Formtec, whether arbitration materials or late-produced exhibits can be used, and numerous evidentiary matters including witness disclosures and expert testimony.
Prior arbitration in Wisconsin between Formtec and a third party generated evidence at issue in the present litigation.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Tomahawk’s Standing to Claim Damages for Confidential Info	Tomahawk can’t claim IP damages; Formtec owns the trade secrets, so only it suffered harm.	Tomahawk can claim damages via employee’s duty of loyalty, even if Formtec owns IP; seeks lost wages due to Wolff’s disloyalty.	Tomahawk can’t claim IP loss; can pursue damages based on employee's loyalty breach, likely limited to wages for period of disloyalty.
Exclusion of Arbitration Evidence	Unfair prejudice without access to all arbitration records; seeks exclusion of all related evidence.	Arbitration evidence is longstanding in the case, and Plaintiff’s counsel should have sought it sooner; motion in limine is not proper channel.	Denied: Arbitration evidence not categorically excluded; asymmetry in records was resolved via court order to prior counsel.
Late-Produced Evidence	All evidence produced after discovery should be excluded as unfairly prejudicial.	Late production was supplementation in response to Plaintiff’s expert reports; essential and relevant.	Denied with leave to renew regarding specific exhibits that were untimely and prejudicial.
Witnesses Not on List	Objects to generalized exclusion, claims motion lacks specificity and should be denied.	Only listed witnesses may testify, per court’s Trial Management Order and rules against unfair surprise.	Granted: Only witnesses properly disclosed on witness lists (lay and expert) may testify barring good cause.

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (standard for motions in limine: preliminary ruling; court may alter at trial)
United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108 (motions in limine as procedural limits on evidence/admissibility)
City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060 (motions in limine manage trial and preserve context for evidentiary rulings)
Olsen v. Producers Life Ins. Co., 250 Or. 517 (damages for employee disloyalty may forfeit some compensation, but not all prior wages unless linked to disloyal conduct)