Blankenchip et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 128

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 11/17/2016 GRANTING 101 Citimortgage's Motion In Limine. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

----oo0oo----

10
11

RANDY BLANKENCHIP and SUSAN
BLANKENCHIP,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiffs,

CIV. NO. 2:14-02309 WBS AC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION IN LIMINE

v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; CALWESTERN RECONVEYANCE, LLC;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

16

Defendants.

17
----oo0oo----

18
19

Before the court is Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc.’s

20

(“Citi”) Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Reference of Parties’

21

Discovery Dispute and Defendant’s Redactions and Claims of

22

Privilege.

23

different versions of the same loan servicing notes produced by

24

Citi in discovery.

25

under claim of attorney-client privilege (though not entirely the

26

same redactions in both) while the third version is unredacted

27

except for entries that were recorded after this litigation

28

commenced.

(Docket No. 101.)

The motion focuses on three

The first two versions contain redactions

Plaintiff intends to admit all three versions, while
1

1

Citi contends that only the final, largely unredacted version

2

should be admitted at trial.

3

Here, it is unclear what probative value, if any, the

4

first two versions of the servicing notes have in this case

5

beyond the third version, which the parties agree is admissible.

6

Simply put, there is no need for the first two, more heavily

7

redacted versions of the servicing notes when plaintiffs will

8

introduce the third, largely unredacted version at trial.

9

Admitting the first two documents would only provide evidence of

10

Citi’s claims of privilege and the corresponding discovery

11

dispute years after the events at issue in the amended complaint.

12

These redactions, and the parties’ dispute regarding them, have

13

no bearing on any issue to be decided by the jury in this case

14

and no probative value.

15

of the same document, where the only difference between the

16

versions is the level of redactions, is likely to confuse the

17

issues at trial, waste time, and needlessly present cumulative

18

evidence.

19

exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

20

Moreover, introducing multiple versions

Accordingly, the court will grant the motion to

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Citi’s motion in limine

21

be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

22

follows:

23

1.

The court orders as

Plaintiffs Randy Blankenchip and Susan

24

Blankenchip, their counsel, and their witnesses are precluded

25

from referencing, mentioning, or introducing evidence of any

26

discovery dispute between the parties.

27
28

2.

Plaintiffs Randy Blankenchip and Susan

Blankenchip, their counsel, and their witnesses are precluded
2

1

from referencing or mentioning the redactions Citi’s counsel made

2

to Citi's servicing notes.

3

3.

Plaintiffs Randy Blankenchip and Susan

4

Blankenchip’s counsel is precluded from examining Citi’s

5

witnesses or any witness or from asking any question about the

6

redactions Citi's counsel made to Citi’s servicing notes.

7

4.

Plaintiffs Randy Blankenchip and Susan

8

Blankenchip, their counsel, and their witnesses are precluded

9

from introducing at trial the first and second redacted versions

10

of Citi’s servicing notes, which are identified as plaintiffs’

11

trial exhibit numbers 43 and 44 and described as “First Redacted

12

Production of Servicing Notes” and “Second Redacted Production of

13

Servicing Notes.”

14

Dated:

November 17, 2016

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3