Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1803

ORDER RE GOOGLE MOTION IN LIMINE RE EXPERT VOUCHING FOR PREFERRED VERSION OF DISPUTED FACT (ECF NO. 1697) [re #1697 MOTION in Limine Google's #1 Summary MIL to Preclude Expert Testimony that is Recitation of a Preferred Version of Disputed Facts and Oracle's Opposition filed by Google Inc.]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/3/2016. (Attachments: #1 Appendix Draft Jury Instruction on Expert Witnesses)(whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ORACLE AMERICA, INC., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. C 10-03561 WHA v. ORDER RE GOOGLE MOTION IN LIMINE RE EXPERT VOUCHING FOR PREFERRED VERSION OF DISPUTED FACT (ECF NO. 1697) GOOGLE INC., Defendant. / Google is correct that an expert should never purport to tell the jury which side’s fact 17 witnesses are credible or vouch for whose fact scenario is correct — that is entirely for the jury. 18 Nor should an expert ever attempt to tell the jury what someone intended or was thinking. 19 The mental state of the characters in our story on trial is for the jury to decide, never for experts 20 to speculate about. No after-the-fact expert could possibly have firsthand knowledge anyway. 21 No expert is a mind reader. These are clear-cut prohibitions. 22 That said, subject to the other rules of evidence, it will be permissible for experts to quote 23 from fact testimony or emails, memos, letters or other documents which are part of the res gestae 24 of the case and then to explicitly assume that they accurately reflect the relevant circumstances 25 and then, based thereon, apply their specialized expertise to render opinions beyond the ken of 26 our lay jury. This will be allowed even if a document (or testimony) reveals a mental state (like 27 an intent to “make enemies”). Under such a procedure, there will be no vouching because the 28 expert will make clear that he or she is simply assuming the document or testimony to have been 1 accurate. The expert, however, cannot embellish on the content of the evidentiary material in 2 violation of the strict prohibitions set forth above. On cross-examination, the other side may 3 clobber the expert’s assumption with documents or testimony going the other way. Within the 4 limits of Rule 403, the Court will allow this for both sides unless and until it gets out of hand. 5 As a matter of respect for the ability and role of juries, the Court would have preferred 6 that experts truncate the “fact advocacy” part of their testimony down to their core factual 7 assumptions and then, based thereon, explain their opinions to the jury. Both sides in this case, 8 however, seemed primed to argue their fact cases through experts, so it is hopeless to try to 9 regulate the problem further than to say the judge will vigilantly enforce the two principles stated 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 above, even to the extent of interrupting and striking testimony sua sponte. Furthermore, to protect the integrity of the process and to help the jury evaluate “expert 12 testimony,” the Court will give the jury the instruction appended hereto, subject to hearing 13 counsel’s objections (due by NOON ON MAY 7). 14 Google’s motion is DENIED. 15 Please note that other orders in limine will address Witnesses Kemerer, Jaffe and 16 Malackowski and the denial in this order is without prejudice to restrictions elsewhere. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: May 3, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?