Don Henley et al v. Charles S Devore et al

Filing 104

OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF AN "ADVICE OF COUNSEL" DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF AN "ADVICE OF COUNSEL" DEFENSE 96 filed by Defendants Charles S Devore, Justin Hart, Counter Claimants Charles S Devore, Justin Hart. (Arledge, Christopher)

Don Henley et al v. Charles S Devore et al

Doc. 104

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Christopher W. Arledge (Bar No. 200767) Email: [e-mail] John Tehranian (Bar No. 211616) Email: [e-mail] ONE LLP 4000 MacArthur Boulevard West Tower, Suite 1100 Newport Beach, California 92660 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants Charles S. DeVore and Justin Hart UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DON HENLEY, MIKE CAMPBELL, and DANNY KORTCHMAR Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES S. DEVORE and JUSTIN HART, Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS Case No. SACV09-0481 JVS (RNBx) DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION (OR RATHER REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION) TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

Defendants do not intend to rely on an "advice of counsel" defense. They will not ask for a jury instruction on that point. Thus, they do not oppose Plaintiffs' second motion in limine. But Defendants to ask the Court to clarify in its order that (1) if Plaintiffs elicit testimony regarding Justin Hart's discussion with a lawyer--a discussion that came up in his deposition from pages 107 to 113--that the door will be open to Defendants using the discussion in their defense; and (2) that if Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' infringement was willful, at least in part, because they never consulted a lawyer, that Defendants be allowed to testify that they did discuss the matter with the lawyer with whom Hart talked. 17079.1 1

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION (OR RATHER REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION) TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In other words, Plaintiffs should not be allowed to use this motion in limine as a way to take unfair advantage of Defendants at trial. If they open the door to testimony about Hart's legal consult, he and his counsel should be allowed to discuss and use that testimony. Dated: July 2, 2010 ONE LLP

By: /s/ Christopher W. Arledge Christopher W. Arledge Attorneys for Defendants, Charles S. Devore and Justin Hart

17079.1

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION (OR RATHER REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION) TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

2