Hobart Corporation et al v. The Dayton Power and Light Company et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
HOBART CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
DAYTON POWER AND LIGHT
COMPANY, etal.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:13-cv-115
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING THE JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT
MR. RICHARD WHITE'S OPINIONS THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE LIABLE PARTIES AS
[PER] PLAINTIFFS' ADOPTIVE ADMISSION AND JUDICIAL ADMISSION, FILED BY
DEFENDANTS CONAGRA GROCERY PRODUCTS COMPANY, LLC AND WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF OHIO (DOC. #1560); OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS' CROSS-
MOTION TO STRIKE (DOC. #1573)
This case is before the Court on two pending motions. First is a Motion in
Limine to Admit Mr. Richard White's Opinions that Plaintiffs are Liable Parties as
[per] Plaintiffs' Adoptive Admission and Judicial Admission, filed by Defendants
ConAgra Grocery Products, LLC and Waste Management of Ohio, Inc.
("Defendants"). 1 Doc. #1560. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion,
1 Defendant Sherwin-Williams Company also joined this motion. It subsequently settled
with Plaintiffs. Doc. #1618.
Case: 3:13-cv-00115-WHR Doc #: 1655 Filed: 04/06/26 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

which included a Cross-Motion to Strike the motion in limine, Doc. #1573, and
Defendants filed a reply to their motion. Doc. #1574.
For the reasons contained herein, Defendants' Motion in Limine to Admit Mr.
Richard White's Opinions that Plaintiffs are Liable Parties as [per] Plaintiffs'
Adoptive Admission and Judicial Admission, Doc. #1560, is OVERRULED and
Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Strike, Doc. #1573, is OVERRULED.
I. Analysis
On May 19, 2025, this Court directed all parties to "file briefs on the docket
explaining their theories on the proper method of RI/FS and future response costs
and factors to be considered in these calculations" in advance of a June 10, 2025,
settlement conference. Doc. #1357. Plaintiffs complied with that Order and
submitted their Brief Regarding Allocation of RI/FS and Future Response Costs on
June 6, 2025. Doc. #1369. Attached to their filing. Plaintiffs included two allocation
tables produced by their expert, Mr. Richard White. Doc. #1369-4, PagelD #51818;
Doc. #1369-5, PagelD #51819. Defendants now seek a finding that, by including
these two tables. Plaintiffs adopted Mr. White's conclusion about Plaintiffs' own
liability. Doc. #1560.
In response. Plaintiffs argue that the motion is (1) mooted by a then-recent
Court decision, (2) that it should be struck as untimely, or, alternatively, (3) that it
should be denied. In making this last point. Plaintiffs argue that the allocation tables
2
Case: 3:13-cv-00115-WHR Doc #: 1655 Filed: 04/06/26 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

were submitted at the Court's direction in anticipation of mediation and is protected
under Fed. R. Evid. 408-Doc. #1573, PagelD #66974.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, "conduct or a statement made during
compromise negotiations" are generally inadmissible in a civil case. Fed. R. Evid.
408(a)(2). For a settlement conference to be successful, "parties must feel
uninhibited in their communications. " Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power
Supply, Inc., 332 F. 3d 976, 980 (6th Cir. 2003). "They must be free to make candid
assessments, admit their strengths and weaknesses, offer concessions, and put on
hold the performative aspects of trial. " In re University of Michigan, 936 F. 3d 460,
465 (6th Cir. 2019).
In this case, the Court opted to conduct a mediation session with all parties
on June 10, 2026, believing that such an exercise had the potential to facilitate
settlement between Plaintiffs and one or more Defendants. Were the Court to
permit Defendants to use Plaintiffs' submission against them. Plaintiffs would likely
be unwilling to present open and candid opinions in any future settlement
discussions. This would run contrary to the very reason Rule 408 was enacted. The
settlement process should not only permit a party to identify weak points in their
own case, it should encoura e it. The policy of Rule 408, not to mention good public
policy, counsel for exclusion of evidence presented in the course of settlement
discussions. The Court finds no legal distinction in the fact that the brief was filed
Case: 3:13-cv-00115-WHR Doc #: 1655 Filed: 04/06/26 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

on the public docket rather than private submission, it was created and filed in
pursuit of settlement. Therefore, the parties' briefing, submitted at the Court's
direction and in pursuit of settlement, is protected by Rule 408 and is inadmissible.
^L^-^
Defendants' motion. Doc. #1560, is OVERRULED. Despite the wisdom of the Court's
allowing all parties to file any mediation statements publicly, no mediation
statements filed publicly constitute an adoptive admission and judicial admission.
Mention of same is not to be mentioned at trial or in follow-up memoranda. Docs.
#1367-69, Doc. #1371-72.
Given this Court's decision to overrule Defendants' motion, the Court need
not go further and determine whether the motion should be stricken from the
record. As such, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Cross-Motion to Strike. Doc.
#1573.
II. Conclusion
For the reasons contained herein, Defendants' Motion in Limine to Admit Mr.
Richard White's Opinions that Plaintiffs are Liable Parties as [per] Plaintiffs'
Adoptive Admission and Judicial Admission, Doc. #1560, is OVERRULED and
Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Strike, Doc. #1573, is OVERRULED.
Case: 3:13-cv-00115-WHR Doc #: 1655 Filed: 04/06/26 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Date: April 6, 2026 U<^^ (4. (
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE
Case: 3:13-cv-00115-WHR Doc #: 1655 Filed: 04/06/26 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>