Filed: Jun. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 21, 2012
Summary: ORDER K. GARY SEBELIUS, Magistrate Judge. This matter comes before the Court upon Z 3 Technology, LLC's Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence and Argument Relating to Alleged Software Issues with DM355 Modules (ECF No. 213). In the current motion, Z 3 seeks an order barring Digital from introducing any evidence and argument relating to any purported software issues with the DM355 modules as irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and unfairly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403. For the reasons exp
Summary: ORDER K. GARY SEBELIUS, Magistrate Judge. This matter comes before the Court upon Z 3 Technology, LLC's Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence and Argument Relating to Alleged Software Issues with DM355 Modules (ECF No. 213). In the current motion, Z 3 seeks an order barring Digital from introducing any evidence and argument relating to any purported software issues with the DM355 modules as irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and unfairly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403. For the reasons expl..
More
ORDER
K. GARY SEBELIUS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon Z3 Technology, LLC's Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence and Argument Relating to Alleged Software Issues with DM355 Modules (ECF No. 213). In the current motion, Z3 seeks an order barring Digital from introducing any evidence and argument relating to any purported software issues with the DM355 modules as irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and unfairly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403. For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted.
On November 1, 2008, Plaintiff Digital Ally, Inc. ("Digital") and Z3 entered into a contract entitled Production License Agreement PLA-2008.10.31 ("PLA-2008"). PLA-2008 called for Z3 to design a DM355 module for use in Digital's products and then manufacture and deliver to Digital 1,000 units along with the necessary software.
On June 8, 2009, Digital filed this lawsuit. In Count I of its Complaint, Digital alleged that Z3 breached PLA-2008 by delivering non-conforming DM355 modules. On November 4, 2009, Z3 filed a counterclaim against Digital.1 In Count II of its Counterclaim, Z3 asserted that Digital breached PLA-2008.
On June 2, 2011, Z3 moved for summary judgment on Count II of its Counterclaim and Count I of Digital's Complaint.2 Z3 argued that Digital did not comply with the software warranty provisions in PLA-2008 and thus could not assert a claim for breach of the software warranty or defend against Z3's claim for breach of PLA-2008 based upon any alleged software deficiencies. Digital failed to respond to Z3's motion on this point. Indeed, it was not even clear whether Digital was asserting breach of the software warranty. After considering Z3's memorandum and the cited authorities contained therein, the Court held that "Digital has no claim regarding software issues in the DM355 module."3 As a result, the Court agrees that any purported software issues with the DM355 modules are irrelevant.
Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Z3 Technology, LLC's Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence and Argument Relating to Alleged Software Issues with DM355 Modules (ECF No. 213) is hereby granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
