Munoz, et al. vs. PHH Mortgage Corp., et al.

Filing 542

ORDER Respecting 487 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike and Preclude Evidence and/or Testimony Regarding Individual Class Member Payment Histories, signed by Judge M Miller Baker on 02/01/2022. (Maldonado, C)

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.
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:08-cv-00759-MMB-BAM
ORDER RESPECTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO STRIKE AND PRECLUDE
EVIDENCE AND/OR
TESTIMONY REGARDING
INDIVIDUAL CLASS MEMBER
PAYMENT HISTORIES

15

Plaintiffs move (ECF 487) for an order to “strike from the record and

16

preclude from trial any evidence and/or testimony concerning the payment his-

17

tories of Plaintiffs Munoz, Lovette, and Hoffman, and the accompanying Dec-

18

laration of Gina Feezer cited in Defendants’ [motion in limine] #1.” 1 ECF 487,

19

at 1.

20

Defendants, in response, acknowledge that the material in question does

21

not appear on either side’s trial exhibit list and was not produced during fact

22

discovery, but they contend that the reason for attaching the evidence was to

23

demonstrate “the nature of the evidence Plaintiffs should have amassed to

24

prove their damages under RESPA, and that the record is devoid of such evi-

25

dence.” ECF 502, at 1 (emphasis in original). They contend that because they

The title of Defendants’ motion in limine #1 refers to a request “for an order on the
appropriate method for calculating and proving damages.” ECF 469, cover page.
1

1

have not sought to make the evidence in question part of the trial record, there

2

is nothing to exclude, such that the part of the motion relating to the trial rec-

3

ord “is both moot and premature.” Id. at 1–2.

4
5

In reply, Plaintiffs argue that evidence relating to individual payment
histories would be irrelevant based on prior court orders. ECF 519, at 2–3.

6

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike therefore presents two issues: (1) Should De-

7

fendants be precluded from introducing the evidence in question at trial?

8

(2) Should the evidence in question be stricken from the record for purposes of

9

Defendants’ motion in limine #1?

10

As to the first issue, Defendants affirmatively state that they are not

11

seeking to admit the evidence for use at trial, and they acknowledge that the

12

evidence was not disclosed in the manner required by the final pretrial order

13

(ECF 456) for evidence to be introduced at trial. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion

14

is moot insofar as it seeks to preclude the introduction of this evidence at trial.

15

As to the second issue, Defendants cited the evidence in question in sup-

16

port of their motion in limine #1 for demonstrative purposes. The court decided

17

that motion in limine as a matter of law without relying on the attached evi-

18

dence, which simply proved unnecessary to resolving the motion. There is thus

19

no need to strike the evidence from the motion record, and Plaintiffs’ motion is

20

moot insofar as it seeks to do so.

2

1

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion titled “Plaintiffs’ mo-

2

tion for an order striking from the record and precluding from trial evidence

3

and/or testimony concerning individual class member payment histories cited

4

in Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1 and incorporated memorandum of law”

5

(ECF 487) is DENIED as moot.

6
7

Dated: February 1, 2022

2

/s/ M. Miller Baker
M. Miller Baker, Judge 2

Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

3