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