Allen v. Radio Shack Corporation et al

Filing 96

TENTATIVE ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2013)

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7

FRANK ALLEN,
Plaintiff,

8
9

TENTATIVE ORDER RE MOTIONS IN
LIMINE (FOR DISCUSSION AT FINAL
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE)

v.
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION,
Defendant.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 11-03110 WHA

/

12
13
14

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1
RadioShack’s motion in limine number 1 is GRANTED TO THIS EXTENT. No reference

15

before the jury shall be made to the four “me too” persons until after both cases in chief are

16

presented. Then, the Court will decide the extent to which any of their stories may be heard in

17

plaintiff’s rebuttal case. This decision will be based on the record of the case as actually tried up

18

to that point.

19

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2

20

RadioShack’s motion in limine number 2 is DENIED. In light of RadioShack’s

21

affirmative defenses, plaintiff is entitled to try to prove that RadioShack’s policies and

22

procedures fell short of reasonable as measured by industry standards and to show that

23

RadioShack’s response to plaintiff’s grievance was substandard as measured by industry

24

standards. The expert, however, may not opine on whether any person did or did not act in good

25

faith or otherwise testify to subjective intent, at least without prior Court approval upon an

26

opening of the door by the defense.

27

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3

28

With respect to RadioShack’s motion in limine number 3, Tom Nabozny may testify to
facts he observed, not lay opinions, and may testify to his conversation with Donna Ocampo, a

1

decision-maker in plaintiff’s case (the “go-getter” conversation). He must stick to the factual

2

observations unless the defense opens the door. This motion is accordingly GRANTED IN PART.

3

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4

4
5

RadioShack’s motion in limine number 4 regarding settlements with employees is
GRANTED.

6
7
8
9

*

*

*

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1
Plaintiff’s motion in limine number 1 is GRANTED as to all excerpts quoted except the
one at page 7 lines 5–7 of the plaintiff’s memorandum. Expert Finkelman must limit his
testimony to the type allowed for the opposing expert (see defense motion in limine number 2).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2

12

Plaintiff’s motion in limine number 2 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to objections to

13

specific questions.

14

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3

15
16
17

Plaintiff’s motion in limine number 3 is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4
Before ruling on plaintiff’s motion in limine number 4 (which will be treated as timely),

18

the Court will hear argument from RadioShack.

19

*

*

*

20

Two caveats to the tentative rulings above: Any denial above does not mean that the evidence at

21

issue in the motion is admitted into evidence — it must still be moved into evidence, subject to

22

other possible objections, at trial. And, a grant of a motion in limine does not exclude the

23

evidence under any and all circumstances; the beneficiary of a grant may open the door to the

24

disputed evidence, for example.

25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 11, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2