Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., 2:12-CV-00572-JRG. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. Texas Number: infdco20200122i27 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 20, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2020
Summary: ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Henry Schein, Inc.'s Objections to Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Evidence (Dkt. No. 369); Defendant Benco Dental Supply Company's Objections to Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Evidence (Dkt. No. 364); Defendants Danaher Corporation, Instrumentarium Dental Inc., Dental Equipment LLC, Kavo Dental Technologies, LLC, and Dental Imaging Technologies Corp.'s Objections to Archer & White's Summary Judgment Evidence and Response to
More

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Henry Schein, Inc.'s Objections to Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Evidence (Dkt. No. 369); Defendant Benco Dental Supply Company's Objections to Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Evidence (Dkt. No. 364); Defendants Danaher Corporation, Instrumentarium Dental Inc., Dental Equipment LLC, Kavo Dental Technologies, LLC, and Dental Imaging Technologies Corp.'s Objections to Archer & White's Summary Judgment Evidence and Response to Plaintiff's Objection to Danaher Exhibit 49 (Dkt. No. 372) (collectively, the "Defendants' Objections to Summary Judgment Evidence").

Having reviewed the Defendants' Objections to Summary Judgment Evidence, the Court has determined that many of the objections are made in reference to evidence which Plaintiff Archer and White Sales, Inc. ("Archer") contends is admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Fed. R. Evid. 801, in conjunction with Fed. R. Evid. 104, requires the Court to make a preliminary determination about the existence of a conspiracy that would support application of the exemption in Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). In order to streamline the determination of admissibility of evidence under such exemption, the Court will address this issue at the pretrial hearing set for January 22, 2020. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Archer be prepared to identify admissible evidence that supports application of Rule 801(d)(2)(E) to each Defendant or entity from whom Archer intends to proffer coconspirator statements.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer