Kourtni Nicole Beebe v. Nutribullet, L.L.C.

C.D. California

Kourtni Nicole Beebe v. Nutribullet, L.L.C.

DecidedAugust 16, 2022

Docket2:17-cv-00828-DDP-GJS

StatusUnknown

This text of Kourtni Nicole Beebe v. Nutribullet, L.L.C. (Kourtni Nicole Beebe v. Nutribullet, L.L.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kourtni Nicole Beebe v. Nutribullet, L.L.C., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 2:17-cv-00828-DDP-GJS Document 353 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:7184 O

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KOURTNI NICOLE BEEBE, an ) Case No. 2:17-cv-00828-DDP-GJS individual, ) ) ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE Plaintiff, ) ) [Dkt. 296-298, 302-306, 310-312] v. ) ) NUTRIBULLET, L.L.C., a California ) Limited Liability Corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) ) /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Case 2:17-cv-00828-DDP-GJS Document 353 Filed 08/16/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:7185 Presently before the court are motions in limine filed by Plaintiff Kourtni Nicole Beebe (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants NutriBullet, LLC, Capital Brands, LLC, Homeland Housewares, LLC, Call To Action, LLC, and NutriLiving, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). (Dkt. 296-298, 302-306, 310-312.) Having considered the parties’ submissions and heard oral argument, the court adopts the following Order:

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #1 (Dkt. 304) is GRANTED, in part, insofar as Plaintiff is pursuing a design defect claim exclusively under the consumer expectations test. If Plaintiff pursues or presents evidence of a design defect claim under the risk-benefit test, nothing in this Order shall prevent Defendants from presenting evidence pertaining to that theory. Defendants may introduce evidence describing in general terms, the components of the product and how they fit and work together. Defendants shall not introduce evidence about the risks or benefits of the design, unless, as noted above, Plaintiffs pursue that theory of liability.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #2 (Dkt. 305, 306) is GRANTED, in part. Although evidence of the safety history of the product, including the testimony of Dr. Wachs, is relevant to Plaintiff’s failure to warn claim, should that claim go forward, such evidence is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s design defect claim under the consumer expectations test, and shall not be introduced in relation to that claim. Should Plaintiff pursue her design defect claim under the risk-benefit test, nothing in this Order shall prevent Defendants from presenting such evidence.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #3 (Dkt. 310) is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #4 (Dkt. 311) is DENIED, in part. Dr. Macer’s testimony shall be limited to his opinion about Plaintiff’s physical injuries. Dr. Macer shall not testify Case 2:17-cv-00828-DDP-GJS Document 353 Filed 08/16/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:7186

1 about Plaintiff’s alleged mental health issues, including her alleged claim of post- 2 traumatic stress disorder. 3 4 Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #5 (Dkt. 312) is DENIED. 5 6 Defendants’ Motion in Limine #1 (Dkt. 297) is DENIED. 7 8 Defendants’ Motion in Limine #2 (Dkt. 298) is GRANTED, in part. Plaintiff shall not refer 9 to any prior incidents, complaints, or lawsuits that involve Defendants’ products. The 10 court reserves as to the use of prior incidents for purposes of impeachment. Cooper v. 11 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 945 F.2d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff must obtain 12 leave of the court prior to any such use. 13 14 Defendants’ Motion in Limine #3 (Dkt. 302) is DENIED, in part. Plaintiff may voire dire 15 Mr. Kitzes outside the presence of the jury before the court makes its final determination 16 as to the admissibility of Mr. Kitzes’ testimony. Plaintiff shall not refer to its failure to 17 warn claim before the jury before the court has ruled on the admissibility of Mr. Kitzes’ 18 testimony. 19 20 Defendants’ (SEALED) Motion in Limine #4 (Dkt. 296) is GRANTED. 21 22 Defendants’ Motion in Limine #5 (Dkt. 303) is RESERVED for trial. Should Plaintiff 23 pursue a claim for punitive damages, Defendants shall be permitted to present evidence, 24 including risk-benefit evidence, general product safety data, and other evidence 25 responsive to that claim. /// 26 /// 27 28 3 Case 2/{17-cv-00828-DDP-GJS Document 353 Filed 08/16/22 Page 4of4 Page ID #:7187

1 |} ITIS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: August 16, 2022 7 DEAN D. PREGERSON 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 2:17-cv-00828-DDP-GJS Document 353 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:7184 O

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KOURTNI NICOLE BEEBE, an ) Case No. 2:17-cv-00828-DDP-GJS individual, ) ) ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE Plaintiff, ) ) [Dkt. 296-298, 302-306, 310-312] v. ) ) NUTRIBULLET, L.L.C., a California ) Limited Liability Corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) ) /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Case 2:17-cv-00828-DDP-GJS Document 353 Filed 08/16/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:7185 Presently before the court are motions in limine filed by Plaintiff Kourtni Nicole Beebe (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants NutriBullet, LLC, Capital Brands, LLC, Homeland Housewares, LLC, Call To Action, LLC, and NutriLiving, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). (Dkt. 296-298, 302-306, 310-312.) Having considered the parties’ submissions and heard oral argument, the court adopts the following Order:

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #1 (Dkt. 304) is GRANTED, in part, insofar as Plaintiff is pursuing a design defect claim exclusively under the consumer expectations test. If Plaintiff pursues or presents evidence of a design defect claim under the risk-benefit test, nothing in this Order shall prevent Defendants from presenting evidence pertaining to that theory. Defendants may introduce evidence describing in general terms, the components of the product and how they fit and work together. Defendants shall not introduce evidence about the risks or benefits of the design, unless, as noted above, Plaintiffs pursue that theory of liability.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #2 (Dkt. 305, 306) is GRANTED, in part. Although evidence of the safety history of the product, including the testimony of Dr. Wachs, is relevant to Plaintiff’s failure to warn claim, should that claim go forward, such evidence is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s design defect claim under the consumer expectations test, and shall not be introduced in relation to that claim. Should Plaintiff pursue her design defect claim under the risk-benefit test, nothing in this Order shall prevent Defendants from presenting such evidence.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #3 (Dkt. 310) is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #4 (Dkt. 311) is DENIED, in part. Dr. Macer’s testimony shall be limited to his opinion about Plaintiff’s physical injuries. Dr. Macer shall not testify Case 2:17-cv-00828-DDP-GJS Document 353 Filed 08/16/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:7186

1 about Plaintiff’s alleged mental health issues, including her alleged claim of post- 2 traumatic stress disorder. 3 4 Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #5 (Dkt. 312) is DENIED. 5 6 Defendants’ Motion in Limine #1 (Dkt. 297) is DENIED. 7 8 Defendants’ Motion in Limine #2 (Dkt. 298) is GRANTED, in part. Plaintiff shall not refer 9 to any prior incidents, complaints, or lawsuits that involve Defendants’ products. The 10 court reserves as to the use of prior incidents for purposes of impeachment. Cooper v. 11 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 945 F.2d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff must obtain 12 leave of the court prior to any such use. 13 14 Defendants’ Motion in Limine #3 (Dkt. 302) is DENIED, in part. Plaintiff may voire dire 15 Mr. Kitzes outside the presence of the jury before the court makes its final determination 16 as to the admissibility of Mr. Kitzes’ testimony. Plaintiff shall not refer to its failure to 17 warn claim before the jury before the court has ruled on the admissibility of Mr. Kitzes’ 18 testimony. 19 20 Defendants’ (SEALED) Motion in Limine #4 (Dkt. 296) is GRANTED. 21 22 Defendants’ Motion in Limine #5 (Dkt. 303) is RESERVED for trial. Should Plaintiff 23 pursue a claim for punitive damages, Defendants shall be permitted to present evidence, 24 including risk-benefit evidence, general product safety data, and other evidence 25 responsive to that claim. /// 26 /// 27 28 3 Case 2/{17-cv-00828-DDP-GJS Document 353 Filed 08/16/22 Page 4of4 Page ID #:7187

1 |} ITIS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: August 16, 2022 7 DEAN D. PREGERSON 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kourtni Nicole Beebe v. Nutribullet, L.L.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kourtni-nicole-beebe-v-nutribullet-llc-cacd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack