Opinion ID: 204121
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Waivers and the Remedy

Text: Despite the deficiency in VSI's proof of damages, MPT did not argue in the district court that VSI's product disparagement claim was deficient as a matter of law solely based on VSI's failure to prove particular customer losses. [13] In its motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff's case, MPT argued more generally that VSI's claimed damages were too speculative to be recoverable as a matter of law. Even in its post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial, MPT argued that the damages award was legally unsupported only because the law in Massachusetts is that a plaintiff may not establish lost profits simply by showing that it missed projections, which is the only evidence of causation VSI offered. In its supporting memorandum, MPT further argued lack of causation by pointing to the absence of particularized evidence, asserting that VSI had failed to show that any customer ever even heard MPT's allegedly false statements, much less made a purchasing decision based on them and that a lost profits claim could not be based solely on a discrepancy between the plaintiff's sales projections and its actual sales. The memorandum did not, however, address the widespread dissemination exception, which VSI invoked in its response. In my view, both parties bear responsibility for the gap in the record on damages. VSI should not have presumed that it would be deemed entitled to the widespread dissemination exception, given the traditional grounding of product disparagement claims in proof of specific customer losses. Arguably, VSI should have produced evidence of specific customer losses, or established that such evidence was not reasonably obtainable, to avoid forfeiting its claim. See Prosser & Keeton § 128, at 972-73 (It is probably still the law everywhere that [the plaintiff] must either offer the names of those who have failed to purchase or explain why it is impossible for him to do so....). For its part, MPT failed to object when VSI changed its damages strategy mid-trial on the ground that the traditional special damage rule for product disparagement actions requires a showing of specific lost customers. MPT's failure to argue that particularized proof of loss was required as a matter of law arguably forecloses reliance on that contention on appeal. Yet, oddly, VSI has not argued that MPT waived this issue. Given the unusual circumstances and the substantial $4.5 million award, I believe the most appropriate outcome is to remand the damages issue for further consideration by the district court. I do not see the problem as inadequate evidentiary support for the amount of damages; rather, I believe a preliminary issue must be resolved before any damages may be awarded. In my view, the district court must decide the threshold question of whether VSI is entitled to rely on the widespread dissemination exceptioni.e., whether evidence of specific lost sales was reasonably obtainable by VSI. If the district court were to find that specific lost sales would be unreasonably difficult for VSI to identify, it could appropriately reinstate the damages award without further proceedings. If, however, the court concluded that evidence of specific customer impact was reasonably accessible, the most appropriate next step would appear to be a new trial on damages in which VSI could attempt to make the required showing. [14] I would therefore vacate the judgment in favor of VSI and remand for such further proceedings.