LOBSTER 207 LLC v. PETTEGROW et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
LOBSTER 207, LLC, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:19-CV-00552-LEW
)
WARREN B. PETTEGROW, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER
The matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude
Arbitrator’s Final Award at Trial (ECF No. 446) and Defendants’ Motion to Lift Protective
Order (ECF No. 452).
B ACKGROUND
In June 2020, I issued an order compelling Lobster 207 and its former CEO Warren
Pettegrow to arbitrate their dispute concerning matters arising out of their employment
agreement. That dispute concerned, chiefly, the “for cause” termination provision of the
employment agreement, though it also reached more broadly to encompass “claims based
on duties associated with the employment relationship.” 	Mem. of Dec. and Order at 19
(ECF No. 72). 	Neither the agreement to arbitrate nor my order compelling arbitration
reached the related dispute between Lobster 207 and the other Pettegrow defendants and
the Trenton Bridge Lobster Pound.
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 486 Filed 08/01/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
The arbitrator returned his award in August 2021, finding in favor of Lobster 207.
On December 10, 2021, I issued an order confirming the award and denying Warren
Pettegrow’s motion to vacate the award. Order re. Arb. Award (ECF No. 269). On January
26, 2022, I granted final judgment to Plaintiff, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), on Count
V (breach of fiduciary duty) and Count VII (breach of contract) based on the preclusive
effect of the confirmed arbitration award. Order on Pl.’s Mot. for Final J. (ECF No. 277).
That is as far as the claim-preclusive ruling went. The claims remaining in this action have
factual overlap with those resolved by the arbitrator, but fell outside the scope of the
arbitration provision, which the moving defendants in any event were not party to.
Meanwhile, during the discovery process Lobster 207 produced a collection of
recorded phone calls subject to a confidentiality assertion. In November 2021, I permitted
the confidentiality designation to remain in place for one subset of recordings, lifted it as
to a second subset, but extended a temporary protective order over the second subset
pending the trial phase of the litigation. 	Am. Order on Pl.’s Renewed Mot. to Retain
Confidentiality Designation (ECF No. 261). The second subset of recordings entail what
I previously described as a 30-page log (ECF No. 245-1 (sealed)) that itemizes certain
comments made by witnesses that, in general, disparage the defendants. The rationale for
the protective order was drawn from Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and was stopgap in nature.
D ISCUSSION
A. 	Motion to Exclude
Defendants Anthony Pettegrow, Josette Pettegrow, and Trenton Bridge Lobster
Pound, Inc., seek an order that excludes from evidence both the arbitration award and any
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 486 Filed 08/01/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
testimony concerning it. They argue that exclusion is proper because Plaintiff’s anticipated
use of the award at trial would violate Fed. R. Evid. 802, the rule against hearsay, and
would be inconsistent with Fed. R. Evid. 403, which authorizes a court to exclude relevant
evidence when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value
of the evidence. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that an exception may permit introduction
of the arbitrator’s findings and that, regardless, the Court should inform the jury of the
same through a process of judicial notice.
As a general rule, an arbitrator’s award, like the decision of a judge, is inadmissible
hearsay when offered to prove the truth of the findings found therein unless an exception
to the hearsay rule applies. The Rules of Evidence treat even judgments as hearsay except
in circumstances that are not applicable here. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(22), (23). 	See also,
e.g., United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Boulware,
384 F.3d 794, 806 (9th Cir. 2004); Herrick v. Garvey, 298 F.3d 1184, 1191 (10th Cir.
2002). 	Under the circumstances of this case, I see no good cause to deviate from the
generally accepted rule and conclude that the arbitrator’s award is hearsay if it is introduced
to prove the truth of its findings.
I also find unpersuasive Lobster 207’s argument that the award comes within the
public record or residual exceptions to the hearsay rule. An arbitration award does not fit
within the public record exception of Rule 803(8) for reasons articulated by the Tenth
Circuit in Herrick, 298 F.3d at 1192 (explaining that judges are not executive branch
investigators), and Plaintiff’s notion that the contents of an arbitration award might fit
within the residual exception in Rule 807 is mistaken, since the arbitrator’s factual findings
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 486 Filed 08/01/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
are not more probative than witness testimony when it comes to the jury’s independent,
fact-finding obligation.1
As for judicial notice, I am unwilling to instruct the jury to take notice of the
contents of the arbitration award. I reserve for later consideration whether and if so how
to instruct the jury about the arbitration and resulting award and anticipate a conference
with counsel on the topic. 	I have not predetermined to “hide” the award so long as its
revelation is conducive to a fair and orderly jury trial. Concerning the possible use of the
arbitration award for a purpose other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted and the
related danger of unfair prejudice to the moving defendants, I similarly reserve for later
determination issues of admissibility and prejudice associated with what are presently only
hypothetical concerns.
B. 	Motion to Lift Protective Order
Defendants request that I lift the protective order entered in November 2021. Def.’s
Mot. to Lift Protective Order on Non-Confidential Portions of Phone Calls (ECF No. 452).
Lobster 207 argues that the justification for the protective order remains and that lifting it
before the start of trial will risk contamination of the jury pool. Pl.’s Opp’n (ECF No. 457).
I am not persuaded by Lobster 207 that the jury pool will be contaminated if I lift the
protective order because I am not persuaded that this case excites the popular imagination
anywhere near as much as it does the parties. The venire in Maine is expansive and most
1 Although I begin with the finding that the arbitration award is hearsay, I likely would conclude, in the
alternative, that the admission of the arbitration award would be unfairly prejudicial pursuant to Rule 403
in order to ensure that the jury does not abandon its fact-finding role. See, e.g., Kirouac v. Donahoe, No.
2:11-CV-00423-NT, 2013 WL 5952055, at *7 (D. Me. Nov. 6, 2013).
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 486 Filed 08/01/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
of its members are not likely to hail from Downeast Maine, let alone a lobstering
community, if indeed any do. 	Furthermore, I am confident that voir dire is equal to the
challenge. Accordingly, the protective order is lifted on the portions of recorded statement
logged in docket entry 245-1 (sealed).
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the arbitration award is deemed to be hearsay
evidence and excludable on that basis, but Defendants’ request that all testimony be
precluded on the topic is premature. 	Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion in Limine to
Exclude Arbitrator’s Final Award at Trial (ECF No. 446) is RESERVED FOR TRIAL.
Defendants’ Motion to Lift Protective Order (ECF No. 452) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 1st day of August, 2023
/s/ Lance E. Walker
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 486 Filed 08/01/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>