Lau v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC et al

Filing 55

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 45 Defendant's Motion in Limine ; granting 52 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine; setting deadlines for pretrial filings and settlement conference (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2012)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7

DON LAU,

No. C 11-01940 MEJ
Plaintiff,

8
v.
9

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE
AND SETTING FURTHER PRETRIAL
DEADLINES

MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC,
10
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

On December 13, 2012, the Court held a pretrial conference in this matter, at which time

14 Plaintiff Don Lau and Defendant Mercedes-Banz presented argument on their respective motions in
15 limine. (Dkt. Nos. 45, 52). The Court now issues the following rulings and sets further deadlines for
16 this matter.
17

With respect to Defendant’s motion in limine seeking to exclude testimony from Plaintiff’s

18 proffered expert, Daniel Calef, the Court DENIES the motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE to
19 Defendant reasserting its motion following Defendant’s deposition of Mr. Calef on December 28,
20 2012.
21

As to Plaintiff’s motion in limine seeking to preclude Defendant from introducing evidence

22 that Plaintiff has made prior claims pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and has
23 had other cars repurchased, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion as follows: Defendant may proffer
24 such evidence for impeachment purposes only, subject to any other valid objections.
25

At the hearing, Defendant for the first time raised an issue relating to Plaintiff’s failure to

26 respond to a special interrogatory seeking information about the number of vehicles Plaintiff owned
27 or had registered in corporate names on certain dates. Defendant explained that the answer to the
28 interrogatory may affect whether the vehicle qualifies as a consumer good under the statute, and thus

1 whether Plaintiff has standing to bring his claim. While the Court queries why Defendant waited
2 until a pretrial conference to seek what essentially should have been done as a motion to compel
3 before the close of discovery, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has failed to articulate
4 any justification for failing to timely respond to this interrogatory. The Court therefore ORDERS
5 Plaintiff to serve his response to the interrogatory no later than December 20, 2012. Defendant shall
6 have until January 4, 2013, to file a brief raising any challenges to Plaintiff’s standing under the
7 statute based on such information. Plaintiff’s response shall be due no later than January 7, 2013.
8

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the parties will have 8 hours each to try this case,

9 which includes opening and closing statements, as well as cross-examination.
10

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the parties shall appear for an emergency settlement

12 separate order.
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 conference before January 10, 2013. The parties will be advised of the date and settlement judge by

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15 Dated: December 13, 2012
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2