Ottovich et al v. Chase Home Finance, LLC et al

Filing 99

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE by Judge Alsup terminating 82 Motion in Limine; terminating 83 Motion in Limine; terminating 84 Motion in Limine; terminating 85 Motion in Limine; terminating 86 Motion in Limine; terminating 87 Motion for Disclosure (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

HARVEY OTTOVICH, MARK
OTTOVICH, and the HARVEY G.
OTTOVICH REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST,

13
14
15

No. C 10-02842 WHA

Plaintiffs,
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE
v.

16

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,
WASHINGTON MUTUAL INC., and JP
MORGAN CHASE BANK NA,

17

Defendants.

18

/

19

This action is proceeding to trial on September 6. In advance of the pretrial conference

20

on August 15, defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., for itself and as successor by merger of

21

Chase Home Finance, LLC, submitted five motions in limine, and plaintiff submitted two

22

motions in limine. This order memorializes the rulings made at the pretrial conference.

23

Any denial below does not mean that the evidence at issue in the motion is admitted

24

into evidence — it must still be moved into evidence, subject to other objections, at trial. And,

25

a grant of a motion in limine does not exclude the evidence under any and all circumstances;

26

for example, the beneficiary of a grant may open the door to the disputed evidence.

27
28

1

A.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

2

Defendant moved in limine to exclude expert witness testimony from plaintiffs’ case.

3

Plaintiffs’ counsel stated non-opposition to the motion. For the reasons stated at the pretrial

4

conference, the motion is GRANTED.

5

B.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

6

Defendant moved in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiffs’ damages from plaintiffs’

7

case. As stated at the pretrial conference, plaintiffs are held to the amounts of damages

8

plaintiffs’ counsel stated at the pretrial conference are the extent of damages being sought —

9

i.e., plaintiffs can request no more than the following amounts from the jury:

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

•

Economic damages:

$8,000

11

•

Non-economic damages:

$25,000

12

•

Punitive damages:

$100,000

13

As further stated, because plaintiffs’ response to defendant’s interrogatory regarding damages

14

was a reasonable response to the question as phrased, the motion is otherwise DENIED.

15

C.

16

Defendant moved in limine to exclude evidence of Harvey Ottovich’s alleged mental or

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3

17

physical incapacity. For the reasons stated at the pretrial conference, the motion is GRANTED

18

TO THE FOLLOWING EXTENT:

19

Harvey Ottovich’s incapacity or disability, plaintiffs cannot contend at trial that notice was

20

given to defendant in writing of Harvey Ottovich’s incapacity or disability. Yet, this does not

21

preclude plaintiffs from contending at trial that defendant knew of Harvey Ottovich’s

22

incapacity or disability because of what was in its own file or what defendant was told.

Because plaintiffs did not produce any documents regarding

23

D.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

24

Defendant moved in limine to exclude all documents “produced by Mark Ottovich that

25

would be responsive to JPMorgan[’s] request for production of documents and all information

26

that would be solicited from its interrogatories regarding any of his claims other than those

27

documents produced in his initial disclosure.” For the reasons stated at the pretrial conference,

28

the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the Court’s further consideration of the issue
2

1

after the following procedure: By NOON ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 2011, defendant may submit

2

each document that it claims was not produced in response to a discovery request, the

3

document request and plaintiffs’ response, and a declaration in support of defense counsel’s

4

statement that not a single document was produced in response to the discovery requests (until

5

July 2011). Plaintiffs’ counsel may respond by NOON ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2011. The

6

Court will vet the discovery requests to determine whether they were reasonable requests and

7

to determine whether the documents that plaintiffs now want to use at trial were in fact called

8

for by defendant’s discovery requests. If the documents plaintiffs now seek to use at trial were

9

called for by the requests and not produced, and without very good cause, defendant’s motion

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

will be granted.

11

E.

12

Defendant moved in limine to exclude witnesses not disclosed in initial disclosures.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5

13

After comparing the trial witness list and the witnesses disclosed in plaintiffs’ initial

14

disclosures, the only proposed trial witnesses who were disclosed in initial disclosures are the

15

plaintiffs, Mark and Harvey Ottovich. For the reasons stated at the pretrial conference, the

16

motion is GRANTED, and only Mark and Harvey Ottovich may testify at trial in plaintiffs’ case.

17

F.

18

Plaintiffs moved in limine for inclusion of Rule 404(b) evidence. For the reasons stated

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

19

at the pretrial conference, the motion is DENIED, and plaintiffs may not present evidence of

20

other acts by defendant as a part of their case.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 (labeled No. 3)

21

G.

22

Plaintiffs moved in limine to bifurcate punitive damages from damages. For the

23

reasons stated at the pretrial conference, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

24

PART

25

amount of punitive damages, but plaintiffs’ counsel may tell the jury they are seeking punitive

26

damages. The jury will be asked on the verdict form if it finds liability whether punitive

27

damages should also be awarded but not the amount. If the jury answers on the verdict form

28

that punitive damages should be awarded, there will be a second phase of proceedings during

to the following extent: Evidence during the main proceeding shall not concern the

3

1

which either side may present evidence concerning the financial condition and worth of

2

defendant and during which counsel for both sides will be allowed a short time to argue the

3

issue of the amount of punitive damages to the jury. Then, the jury will return to deliberations

4

concerning the amount of punitive damages.

5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: August 16, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4