Miller v. Weinmann

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:19-cv-02213
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 DENNIS R. MILLER, et al., Case No.: 2:19-cv-02213-APG-DJA

4 Plaintiffs Order Granting Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Evidence, 5 v. Questioning, or Argument Relating to Edward Weinmann’s 6 EDWARD M. WEINMANN, et al., Chiropractic License Probation

7 Defendants [ECF Nos. 102, 105]

8 9 Defendants Edward Weinmann and Advanced Masonry Consulting, Inc. seek to exclude 10 any evidence that the Virginia Board of Medicine put Weinmann’s chiropractic license on 11 probation. In 2003, Weinmann signed a consent order that placed his license on indefinite 12 probation because his company, Lifeline Total Healthcare, P.C. (Lifeline), pleaded guilty to 13 health care fraud. ECF No. 102-2. Because these events are stale, I grant the defendants’ motion. 14 The consent order was signed over 20 years ago and Lifeline entered its plea agreement 15 25 years ago. Id. Therefore, these events are too remote to be probative of Weinmann’s 16 character for truthfulness under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b). See United States v. Jackson, 17 882 F.2d 1444, 1448 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[R]emoteness remains a relevant factor for the trial court 18 to consider in assessing the probative value of the evidence.”). The plaintiffs argue that the 19 consent order was signed only a few years before Weinmann contacted the plaintiffs to discuss 20 selling and promoting Omni Blocks. But this evidence is relevant only to Weinmann’s 21 credibility as a testifying witness because his character for truthfulness is not at issue in the 22 plaintiffs’ claims for trademark infringement or Lanham Act unfair competition. So the relevant 23 1 temporal consideration is the amount of time between when the specific instances occurred and 2 when Weinmann testifies. 3 The plaintiffs’ argument that Weinmann signed the consent order shortly before 4 contacting them shows the risk that this evidence could be used for a purpose other than

5 evaluating Weinmann’s character for truthfulness. The plaintiffs indicate they would use the 6 consent order and Lifeline’s plea agreement for something other than evaluating Weinmann’s 7 credibility on the stand, saying that, had they known about the consent order or plea agreement, 8 they never would have done business with Weinmann. The plaintiffs cannot use Rule 608(b) to 9 bypass Rule 404’s prohibition on using character evidence to show that someone acted in 10 accordance with that character trait. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1). 11 Although fraud is probative of truthfulness, the consent order does not state that 12 Weinmann committed fraud. And if he had been personally convicted, the evidence would be 13 subject to Rule 609(b)’s ten-year limitation. The defendants assert that if Weinmann was 14 questioned on the topic, he would testify that his billing agent made the errors, and Weinmann

15 was punished for not adequately supervising his staff. The plaintiffs argue that Weinmann was 16 Lifeline’s sole owner, so its actions should be imputed to him. Regardless of whether Weinmann 17 was involved in the healthcare fraud, the age of these events minimizes their relevance to his 18 character for truthfulness now. 19 Finally, the risk of creating a mini trial on this issue substantially outweighs the probative 20 value to Weinmann’s credibility on the stand. To the extent the consent order is even relevant, 21 its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the 22 issues, misleading the jury, and undue delay. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. 23 1 I THEREFORE ORDER that the defendants’ motion in limine (ECF No. 102) is 2|| GRANTED. 3 DATED this 22nd day of September, 2025. 4 ge— > ANDREW P.GORDON isis 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23