UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61307-CIV-SINGHAL/VALLE

VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 

d/b/a VPX SPORTS / REDLINE/BANG 

ENERGY, a Florida Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ALFIERI, an individual, 

ADAM PERRY, an individual, ANDREW 

LaROCCA, an individual, AMY MAROS, an 

individual and ELEGANCE BRANDS, INC., 

a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine, filed on 

February 18, 2022 (the “Motion”) (DE [181]). Defendants Andrew LaRocca and 

Christopher Alfieri (the “Defendants”) filed a Response on March 12, 2022 (DE [219]). 

Plaintiff filed a Reply on March 18, 2022 (DE [226]). The Motion is now ripe for this Court’s 

consideration.

Plaintiff seeks to prevent Defendants from introducing evidence at trial on six 

issues: (1) Defendants’ perception or issues concerning VPX’s workplace environment; 

(2) VPX’s considerations and actions on whether or not to enforce restrictive covenants 

against other former employees; (3) VPX’s finances in comparison to the Individual 

Defendants’ financial standing; (4) the Order on VPX’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 

the appeals of the Order, and the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion; (5) VPX’s hiring of other nonparty employees from other energy drink manufacturers; and (6) VPX’s litigation against 

others. See Motion, at 2. Each will be addressed in turn.

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 276 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2022 Page 1 of 4
2

I. DEFENDANT’S PERCEPTION OR ISSUES CONCERNING WORKPLACE 

ENVIRONMENT

This request is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. One of the key issues in this action 

is whether Defendant Alfieri violated the non-solicitation provision of his restrictive 

covenant and tortiously interfered with VPX’s relationship with the other Defendants. 

Therefore, evidence probative of the reasons for the other defendants’ departure from 

VPX is highly relevant to this question. This includes both evidence of solicitation efforts 

by Defendant Alfieri and workplace conditions at VPX. Any prejudice caused to VPX from

the jury learning of poor conditions at VPX is substantially outweighed by the probative 

value such evidence bears on this key issue.

II. VPX’S DECISIONS WHETHER TO ENFORCE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS 

AGAINST OTHER EMPLOYEES

This request is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. While Defendants may not offer 

evidence to prove the rejected affirmative defense of selective enforcement, see (DE 

[272], at 6), Defendants may offer evidence of selective enforcement to the extent it is 

probative of other issues such as (i) damages suffered by VPX, (ii) calculation and 

reasonableness of VPX’s liquidated damages, and (iii) the extent to which VPX’s alleged 

confidential or proprietary information has been disclosed to third parties or is otherwise 

publicly available.

III. EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES’ FINANCIAL STANDINGS

This request is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Critical issues in this 

case include (i) the extent to which VPX suffered damages as a result of the alleged 

breaches of contract by Defendants and (ii) the calculation and reasonableness of VPX’s 

liquidated damages. Thus, evidence concerning VPX’s financial condition before and 

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 276 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2022 Page 2 of 4
3

after the breaches are alleged to have occurred is relevant to this issue. However, 

evidence regarding Defendants’ own financial conditions offered to prove the financial 

disparity between Plaintiff and Defendants is entirely irrelevant to any issue in this action 

and only risks unfairly prejudicing the jury against VPX.1 Accordingly, evidence of VPX’s 

financial condition offered to show (i) the extent to which VPX suffered damages and (ii) 

the calculation and reasonableness of VPX’s liquidated damages is ADMITTED. 

However, evidence of Defendants’ own financial conditions offered to show the financial 

disparity between Plaintiff and Defendants is EXCLUDED.

IV. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER AND RELATED FILINGS

This request is GRANTED for the reasons discussed in this Court’s prior Order. 

See (DE [261]).

V. VPX’S HIRING OF OTHER NON-PARTY EMPLOYEES

This request is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants respond that 

evidence concerning VPX’s history of procuring experienced talent from competitors 

shows that “hiring talent away” is commonplace in the industry and thus cannot constitute 

unfair competition. This appears relevant to Plaintiff’s claim of tortious interference with a 

contractual relationship and Defendant’s competition privilege affirmative defense against 

that claim. The Court finds this evidence could be probative of whether “hiring talent 

away” does not constitute improper means under the competition privilege.

VI. VPX’S LITIGATION AGAINST OTHERS

This request is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court reserves judgment on 

any issues involving impeachment of witnesses until the time of trial.

1 Because Defendant Elegance Brands, Inc. has entered into a consent judgment with VPX, see (DE [274]), 

the Court need not address this issue with respect to that Defendant.

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 276 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2022 Page 3 of 4
4

For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion 

(DE [181]) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 28th day of 

July 2022.

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 276 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2022 Page 4 of 4