Wolff v. Tomahawk Manufacturing
3:21-cv-00880
D. Or.Jun 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff James B. Wolff sues his former employer, Tomahawk Manufacturing, Inc., alleging breach of contract, disability discrimination, and various forms of retaliation.
- Tomahawk asserts a counterclaim for breach of the employee’s duty of loyalty, alleging Wolff disclosed confidential information obtained during employment.
- The technology at issue involves "gradient breather plates" and "soft choice/soft fill," with disputes over ownership and confidentiality, particularly regarding Tomahawk's affiliate, Formtec, LLC.
- Pretrial motions in limine are central to this order, resolving what evidence and testimony may be introduced at trial.
- The Court also considers Plaintiff’s request to amend his witness list to add himself as a witness, having omitted himself previously by mistake.
- The case is set for trial on the surviving claims and counterclaim, with numerous evidentiary and procedural issues addressed in advance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for trade secret ownership | Formtec, not Tomahawk, owns the trade secrets; Tomahawk has no loss. | Tomahawk can claim damages as client’s info was confidential to it. | Tomahawk can’t claim IP loss but may claim lost wages. |
| Use of Wisconsin Arbitration evidence | Unfair prejudice if Tomahawk uses arbitration evidence not produced. | Wolff had time to get docs; motion in limine wrong vehicle. | Denied exclusion; all relevant, admissible evidence allowed. |
| Late production of discovery | Exclude all Tomahawk evidence produced after close of discovery. | Later production only supplements needed info; was relevant. | Denied, but Wolff can timely object at trial to specific exhibits. |
| Admissibility of undisclosed witnesses | Tomahawk’s motion is a generalized admonition, not a true motion. | Only witnesses on lists should testify; surprise/prejudice issue. | Granted in part; Wolff can add himself, not Dr. Leng. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (motion in limine standard)
- United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108 (motion in limine as procedural mechanism)
- Olsen v. Producers Life Ins. Co., 250 Or. 517 (disgorgement for disloyal employee not always full wage)
- United States v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 178 F. Supp. 3d 927 (motions in limine should sometimes be deferred to trial)
- City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060 (mot. in limine is preliminary and discretionary)