United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ENVY HAWAII LLC doing business as Volvo Cars Honolulu, Plaintiff,
VOLVO CAR USA LLC, Defendant. VOLVO CAR USA LLC, Counter-Claimant,
ENVY HAWAII LLC doing business as Volvo Cars Honolulu; MIKHAIL FEDOTOV, Counter-Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Gillmor States District Judge.
case involves contract disputes and claims of improper
business practices between a local automobile dealership and
the national distributor of Volvo automobiles.
Hawaii LLC (“Envy Hawaii”), doing business as
Volvo Cars Honolulu, was established in December 2012. Envy
Hawaii purchased the rights to operate the sole Volvo
franchise in Hawaii.
Hawaii contracted with Volvo Car USA LLC (“Volvo Car
USA”) to operate its franchise. Volvo Car USA is
located in New Jersey and is the exclusive importer and
wholesaler of Volvo automobiles in the United States.
2015, Mikhail Fedotov became the sole owner and manager of
January 2017, Envy Hawaii filed suit against Volvo Car USA.
Envy Hawaii's First Amended Complaint alleges eight
causes of action, including claims that Volvo Car USA LLC
violated the Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1221 et seq., the Robinson-Patman Act, 15
U.S.C. § 13(a), and several Hawaii state statutes.
Car USA LLC has filed counterclaims against both Envy Hawaii
LLC and its owner Mikhail Fedotov. The Second Amended
Counterclaim contains eleven causes of action including
claims for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract,
unlawful recording, cybersquatting, and unjust enrichment.
are three motions in limine pending before the Court.
Hawaii LLC's Motions In Limine
Envy's Motion In Limine No. 1: Motion To Exclude
Allegations Of Surreptitious Records (ECF No. 165)
Hawaii LLC seeks to preclude Volvo Car USA LLC from
introducing allegations that in February 2017, Envy Hawaii
LLC's Chief Operating Officer, John Martinho, made
unlawful surreptitious recordings during a Volvo Retailer
Conference in California.
Car USA LLC's Second Amended Counterclaim contains the
88. In addition, on February 20 and 21, 2017, Martinho
surreptitiously recorded the confidential proceedings at a
Volvo Retailer Conference (the “Conference”) in
Yountville, California, which he attended as a representative
89. One of [Volvo Car USA]'s major purposes in convening
the Conference was to share confidential business plans and
marketing information with Volvo retailers, including the
display of new Volvo models which have not yet been publicly
90. Because of the confidential nature of the information
shared with Volvo retailers at the Conference, participants
were not permitted to bring in cell phones or any other
devices with which they could record the proceedings. To
enforce this prohibition, [Volvo Car USA] required
participants to go through airport-style metal detectors
before entering the Conference.
91. In violation of this prohibition, and unknown to [Volvo
Car USA], Martinho brought a pen containing a concealed
recording device into the Conference.
92. During a confidential presentation on Tuesday, February
21, 2017, the second day of the Conference, the security
staff at the Conference noticed Martinho acting strangely,
including continually grabbing his pocket pen and moving it
in a twisting motion.
93. After the presentation, security staff approached
Martinho and asked to see the pen. Martinho initially denied
having a pen. After security staff specified the location of
the pen (i.e., in the inside pocket of Martinho's suit),
Martinho turned over the pen.
94. The pen had a camera with a 64-gigabyte S.D. memory card.
Martinho admitted that he was using the device to record the
Conference, although he denied having photographed the
95. Martinho was excluded from the remainder of the
(Second Amended Counterclaim at ¶¶ 88-95, ECF No.
Car USA has asserted two claims against Envy Hawaii based on