UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stonyfield Farm, Inc.

v.

Agro-Farma, Inc. Civil No. 08-cv-488-JD

v.

Schreiber Foods, Inc.

O R D E R

Stonyfield Farm, Inc. moves to preclude the testimony of

Agro-Farma, Inc.’s expert witness, Robert L. Bradley, Jr., on the

ground that his opinion is limited to yogurt processes known in

the dairy industry in the United States. Stonyfield argues that

the relevant scope for purposes of Agro-Farma’s misappropriation

of trade secrets claim under N.H. Revised Statutes Annotated

(“RSA”) 350-B:1, IV(a) is the international dairy industry. 

Based on that interpretation, Stonyfield contends that Bradley’s

opinion would not be helpful to a trier of fact. Agro-Farma

objects.

The underlying legal issue, the scope of the dairy industry

relevant to Agro-Farma’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim

under RSA 350-B:1, IV(a), should not and need not be resolved in

the context of a motion challenging an expert witness’s opinion. 

Case 1:08-cv-00488-JD Document 186 Filed 01/11/11 Page 1 of 3
Even if the scope of the relevant industry is international, as

Stonyfield contends, that would not be a basis for excluding

Bradley’s opinion. As Agro-Farma points out, Bradley’s opinion

about the dairy industry in the United States provides evidence

that is relevant to its claim, even if the scope of the industry

is international, because Agro-Farma need not prove its entire

claim through one witness.

Stonyfield does not contest Bradley’s qualifications to

provide an opinion on the dairy industry in the United States. 

The asserted geographical limitation on Bradley’s opinion merely

would go to its weight, which is a subject for argument at trial. 

See, e.g., Currier v. United Techs. Corp., 393 F.3d 246, 252 (1st

Cir. 2004).

In its objection, Agro-Farma argued that Bradley’s opinion

encompasses the international dairy industry because in preparing

his opinion he reviewed literature pertaining to the dairy

industry outside of the United States. Agro-Farma states that

Bradley stated in his initial opinion that the literature he

reviewed did not identify certain parts of the yogurt-making

process and, therefore, did not disclose Agro-Farma’s process. 

Bradley also reviewed literature identified by Stonyfield’s

experts and concluded that it also did not reveal Agro-Farma’s

exact process. Stonyfield counters in its reply that Bradley

2

Case 1:08-cv-00488-JD Document 186 Filed 01/11/11 Page 2 of 3
cannot opine on what is generally known in the international

dairy industry because he lacks a sufficient factual basis for

that opinion.

Bradley, of course, is limited to the opinions that were

properly disclosed, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c), and meet the

requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. Because Stonyfield raised the

limited issue of whether Bradley’s opinion about the dairy

industry in the United States was admissible as helpful to the

trier of fact, that is the only issue that is resolved in this

order. To the extent Bradley’s opinions may be challenged on

other grounds, this order is without prejudice to such

challenges.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to

preclude (document no. 136) is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

January 11, 2011

cc: Jessica L. Copeland, Esquire

Peter S. Cowan, Esquire

Ryan K. Cummings, Esquire

Thomas J. Donovan, Esquire

Robert J. Fluskey, Jr., Esquire

Edward A. Haffer, Esquire

Kevin M. Kearney, Esquire

Vincent Pozzuto, Esquire

Arnold Rosenblatt, Esquire

Robert A. Stein, Esquire

3

Case 1:08-cv-00488-JD Document 186 Filed 01/11/11 Page 3 of 3