McHale v. Silicon Valley Law Group

Filing 124

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 108 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 109 Motion in Limine; denying 113 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 114 Motion in Limine (jcslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

GERARD A MCHALE,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.: 3:10-cv-04864-JCS
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Dkt. Nos. 108, 109, 113, 114.

v.
SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP,
Defendant.

12
13
14

For the reasons stated on the record:
(1) SVLG’s Motion In Limine No. 1 is GRANTED. The Court excludes the testimony of

15

James Rees under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court also

16

excludes the testimony of James Rees under Rule 403 because the probative value is

17

substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

18

(2) SVLG’s Motion In Limine No. 2 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

19

a. The Court excludes the Memorandum from Kutak Rock LLP, dated October 9,

20

2006 and attached as Exhibit G to the Declaration of Debra Sturmer, under

21

Rule 403 because the probative value is substantially outweighed by the

22

likelihood of jury confusion.

23

b. The Court does not exclude, subject to proper foundation, both Memoranda

24

from Erik Perkins, dated November 7, 2006 and November 21, 2006, and

25

attached as Exhibits H and I to the Declaration of Debra Sturmer.

26

c. The Court excludes pages 1 - 14 of the Memorandum from Jeffrey Berman of

27

Kluger Peretz, dated December 17, 2006 and attached as Exhibit J to the

28

Declaration of Debra Sturmer, under Rule 403 because the probative value is

1

substantially outweig
ghed by the likelihood o jury confu
of
usion. The C
Court does

2

not exclu subject to proper fo
ude,
oundation, p
pages 15 - 17 of the Mem
7
morandum.

3

(3) The Trustee’s Motion In Lim No. 1 i DENIED b
M
mine
is
because it is an imprope summary
s
er

4
5
6
7
8

judg
gment motio
on.
(4) The Trustee’s Motion in Lim No. 2 i GRANTE in part an DENIED in part.
M
mine
is
ED
nd
The Court will extend the nu
e
umber of trial days from eight (8) da to twelve (12) days.
m
ays
IT IS SO ORDERE
O
ED.
Dat January 25, 2012
ted:

9

___
__________
___________
___
Jos
seph C. Sper
ro
Un
nited States M
Magistrate Ju
udge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

2