As the case between Milo & Gabby, LLC and Amazon moved closer to trial, Amazon filed several motions in limine, including a motion to force the plaintiffs to remove statements from its websites, which Amazon contended were inaccurate and prejudicial. Amazon also contended that the statements on the website could taint potential jurors and contained impermissible argument regarding remedial measures.
The plaintiffs opposed the motion and argued that forcing the removal of the statements would be an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The plaintiffs also argued that evidence of subsequent remedial measure is admissible in certain circumstances.
The district court determined that the motion should be denied. The district court explained that the parties would have an opportunity to questions the juror during voir dire and that there was no reason for the district court to expect that the jurors would disregard instructions not to conduct internet research during the trial. “Both parties will have the chance to explore with the jurors during voir dire their familiarity with any of the parties and the issues in this case. Further, the Court has standard instructions for the jurors regarding internet research and exposure to the media, and there is no reason to believe at this time that the jurors will not follow such instructions.”
Accordingly, the district court denied the motion to require the plaintiffs to remove statements from the websites.
Milo & Gabby, LLC v. Amazon, Case No. C13-1932 RSM (W.D. Wash. Oct. 21, 2015)
The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. For more information about this case, contact Stan Gibson at 310.201.3548 or SGibson@jmbm.com.