midpage

Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. v. Hoover Co.Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. v. Hoover Co.

District Court, N.D. Ohio
Feb 25, 1994
No. 5:93 CV 1048
Versions:845 F. Supp. 469
153 F.R.D. 131
1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2176
1994 WL 59907

ORDER

SAM H. BELL, District Judge.

The Court has before it both parties’ objections to the admissibility of various exhibits proffered at the conclusion of the December hearing on Royal’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Among other things, Royal objects to Hoover’s proposed exhibit A27, the first of two studies prepared by Royal’s expert witness, Ivan Ross. The Court agrees that this study should be excluded from evidence in light of Hoover’s prior motion in limine to exclude it and Royal’s voluntary compliance with and reliance on that motion.

For the sake of expediency, the Court deems it appropriate to admit all other exhibits proposed by the parties. It relies, however, only on the evidence properly before it and immediately relevant in reaching its decision on Royal’s contested motion for a preliminary injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case Details

Case Name: Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. v. Hoover Co.
Court Name: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Date Published: Feb 25, 1994
Citations: 845 F. Supp. 469; 153 F.R.D. 131; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2176; 1994 WL 59907; No. 5:93 CV 1048
Docket Number: No. 5:93 CV 1048
Court Abbreviation: N.D. Ohio
Log In