Makreas v. First National Bank of Northern California et al

Filing 221

ORDER REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN EXHIBITS. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar. (jstlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NICK MAKREAS,

Case No. 11-cv-02234-JST

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER REGARDING THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN
EXHIBITS

v.
9
10

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

At the pretrial conference conducted on September 4, 2013, the Court took under

13

submission the admissibility of certain exhibits. The Court now rules as follows concerning those

14

exhibits:

15

1.

The Court will reserve ruling on Exhibits 78 through 80. The Court lacks

16

sufficient information regarding the relevance of these documents, and whether they were ever

17

provided to the Defendants, to determine their admissibility now.

18

2.

The Court has considered the Defendant’s objections to the admissibility of specific

19

interrogatory responses contained in Exhibit 81, as those objections are set forth in the parties’

20

Joint Statement Regarding Use of Discovery Responses At Trial, ECF No. 177, and now rules as

21

follows on the objections.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

a.

Response to Interrogatory Number 4 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

overruled and the response may be admitted.
b.

Response to Interrogatory Number 9 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

sustained and the response is not admissible.
c.

Response to Interrogatory Number 10 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

sustained and the response is not admissible.
d.

Response to Interrogatory Number 11 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

1

sustained and the response is not admissible.
e.

2
3

overruled and the response may be admitted.
f.

4
5

g.

h.

i.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

j.

k.

Response to Interrogatory Number 18 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

sustained and the response is not admissible.
l.

16
17

Response to Interrogatory Number 17 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

sustained and the response is not admissible.

14
15

Response to Interrogatory Number 16 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

overruled and the response may be admitted.

12
13

Response to Interrogatory Number 15 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

overruled and the response may be admitted.

10
11

Response to Interrogatory Number 14 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

overruled and the response may be admitted.

8
9

Response to Interrogatory Number 13 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

sustained and the response is not admissible.

6
7

Response to Interrogatory Number 12 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

Response to Interrogatory Number 19 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

sustained and the response is not admissible.
m.

Response to Interrogatory Number 20 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

18
sustained and the response is not admissible.
19
n.

Response to Interrogatory Number 21 - Defendant’s relevance objection is

20
sustained and the response is not admissible.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

o.

None of the objections contained in any interrogatory response will be read

to the jury.
3.

Exhibits 128 through 130 are admissible if Plaintiff introduces testimony from

which the trier of fact can conclude that the documents were received by the Defendants.
4.

Exhibit 219 is a hearsay document and is not admissible.

5.

Exhibits 281 through 285 (there appears not to be an Exhibit 286) are admissible

if, and only if, the following two conditions are met:

28
2

1

a.

The plaintiff testifies, or other evidence is admitted, that an item of

2

personal property that was identical, or substantially similar to, the item depicted in the exhibit,

3

was converted by the Defendants; and

4

b.

A sponsoring witness with personal knowledge of the contents of the Home

5

Depot website authenticates the exhibit by testifying that (a) the witness accessed the Home Depot

6

website on a particular date; (b) the exhibit is a true and correct copy of images from the Home

7

Depot website as seen on that date. See, e.g., Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 213 F.

8

Supp. 2d 1146, 1154 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: December 6, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3