Munoz, et al. vs. PHH Mortgage Corp., et al.
Filing
505
ORDER DENYING 468 Motion in Limine, signed by Judge M Miller Baker on 1/6/22. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EFRAIN MUNOZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
No. 1:08-cv-00759-MMB-BAM
ORDER RESPECTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
IN LIMINE #6
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
15
Plaintiffs’ sixth motion in limine (ECF 468, at 15–17) requests an order
16
“requiring Defendants to produce witnesses for Plaintiffs’ case in chief that
17
they themselves will bring to trial” and argues that “[a]s a matter of fairness,
18
Plaintiffs should have the option to call Defendants’ witnesses live during
19
Plaintiffs’ case-in-chief rather than relying on deposition testimony.” ECF 468,
20
at 15–16 (emphasis added).
21
Defendants are not required to reach a definite decision, either in ad-
22
vance of trial or even during Plaintiffs’ case-in-chief, which witnesses they will
23
call, as that decision is a strategic matter Defendants are entitled to make in
24
response to the evidence Plaintiffs introduce during their case-in-chief. While
25
Plaintiffs are no doubt correct that “[j]uries pay better attention to live wit-
26
nesses and are notoriously bored by spliced video clips,” id. at 16, the potential
27
for juror boredom is not a sufficient reason to impose a procedural burden on
1
Defendants. Plaintiffs’ desired order would also allow for the problematic sce-
2
nario where Defendants might want to call a witness, are therefore forced to
3
produce that witness for Plaintiffs to call, yet then determine that they did not
4
need to call that witness after all.
5
6
7
Plaintiffs’ motion in limine #6 is therefore DENIED.
Dated: January 6, 2022
1
/s/ M. Miller Baker
M. Miller Baker, Judge 1
Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?