Fresno Rock Taco, LLC v. National Surety Corporation

Filing 151

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [133-138] signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on October 8, 2012. Motion Hearing currently set for 10/15/2012 is VACATED. (Munoz, I)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

FRESNO ROCK TACO, LLC,
et al.,

CASE NO. CV F 11-0845 LJO BAM
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS IN
LIMINE

14
Plaintiffs,
15

(Docs. 133-138.)
vs.

16
NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION,
17
Defendant.
18
/
19
20

This Court issues the following rulings on plaintiffs’ motions in limine (“MIL”):

21

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1: This Court GRANTS as uncontested plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1 as to attorney

22

fees.

23

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2: This Court DENIES plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2 as to expert Gary Gray in that

24

the Magistrate Judge determined already late disclosure issues. Expert Gray may testify on the issue of

25

liability only. His level of expertise goes to credibility and the weight of the evidence, both jury

26

questions.

27
28

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3: This Court DENIES plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3 as to expert Paul Hamilton
in that the Magistrate Judge determined already the late disclosure issues.
1

1

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 4: This Court DENIES plaintiffs’ MIL No. 4 as to expert testimony on

2

ultimate factual issues in that F.R.Evid. 704 applies, even in a diversity case, since it is a rule of

3

procedure.

4

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 5: This Court DENIES plaintiffs’ MIL No. 5 regarding expert opinion on

5

legal and ultimate issues on the same grounds as the denial of plaintiffs’ MIL No. 4. Although counsel

6

believe that plaintiffs skipped No. 5, plaintiffs provided a courtesy copy of "Plaintiff's Motion in Limine

7

No. 5-- For an Order Excluding Expert Opinion Regarding Legal and/or Ultimate Issues).

8

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 6: Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 6 is unclear whether it seeks to exclude a collateral

9

source or plaintiffs’ other pending litigation. Assuming plaintiffs’ MIL No. 6 seeks to exclude both

10

matters, this Court:

11

a.

GRANTS plaintiffs’ MIL No. 6 to the extent it seeks to exclude mention of a collateral

12

source; and

13

b.

DEFERS ruling on exclusion of plaintiffs’ other pending litigation in that such evidence

14

may be admitted for impeachment purposes.

15
16

This Court ORDERS the parties not to mention plaintiffs’ other pending litigation in opening
statements.

17

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 7: This Court DENIES plaintiffs’ MIL No. 7 in that despite whether the

18

search warrant and its execution were mentioned in the denial letter, the search warrant and its execution

19

are admissible if there is evidence that they were factors in defendants’ claims decisions.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
66h44d

October 8, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2