“So to appreciate what’s happening in the soap opera now, it’s more practical to focus on the most recent episodes,” Judge Bumatay said.
Likewise, in antitrust litigation like the Sutter case, “we rely on the district court’s discretion to fashion reasonable limits for admissible historical evidence,” he said.
“After all, trials can’t last forever and jurors can’t always process 5, 10 or 20 years of evidence,” the judge wrote. He added that it “can become stale, cumulative, confusing and distracting for jurors.”
With the majority’s opinion, the Ninth Circuit limits “the discretion that district courts enjoy in managing trials and second guess their ability to set reasonable evidentiary limits,” Judge Bumatay said. “We reverse the jury verdict because we don’t like the district court’s choice of five years. But we offer no other guiding principles.”
Matthew Cantor, counsel for the purchasers, told Law360 on Tuesday that it’s a “significant case in healthcare” that spurred numerous amici briefs.
