Opinion ID: 608853
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Certain Defense Evidence

Text: 33 Finally, defendant contends that the district court erred in its pretrial ruling on plaintiff's motion-in-limine that excluded evidence at trial tending to show that plaintiff resold the G-III Purchase Agreement. The district court ruled that such evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible for the purpose of showing that plaintiff did not suffer the full amount of the alleged overcharge. (J.A. at 65). We review the district court's ruling under an abuse of discretion standard. See Pfeiffer v. Marion Ctr. Area Sch. Dist. Bd. of Sch. Directors, 917 F.2d 779, 781 (3d Cir.1990) ([R]elevance decisions are discretionary and reviewable only for abuse of discretion.). 34 We have affirmed the district court's conclusion that plaintiff had antitrust standing. We also agree with the district court that, because plaintiff was the proper party to bring this action, it had a right to recover all damages for [the] overcharge, regardless of how much of the overcharge it actually absorbed.... (J.A. at 63). Accord Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 746, 97 S.Ct. 2061, 2075, 52 L.Ed.2d 707 (1977). Thus, there was no abuse of discretion in excluding this evidence if offered to prove that plaintiff [could not] recover as damages the entire amount of the overcharge. (J.A. at 63). 35 The court therefore concludes that the various grounds asserted in defendant's appeal lack merit.