Allen v. Radio Shack Corporation et al

Filing 99

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

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 FRANK ALLEN, Plaintiff, 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 11-03110 WHA ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE v. RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, Defendant. 12 / 13 14 Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, and following today’s pre-trial conference, the 15 rulings on the motions in limine are as follows. 16 Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 17 RadioShack’s motion in limine number 1 is GRANTED TO THIS EXTENT. No reference 18 before the jury shall be made to the four “me too” persons until after both cases in chief are 19 presented. Then, the Court will decide the extent to which any of their stories may be heard in 20 plaintiff’s rebuttal case. This decision will be based on the record of the case as actually tried up 21 to that point. 22 Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2 23 In light of RadioShack’s withdrawal of affirmative defense numbers eight and nine, 24 RadioShack’s motion in limine number 2 is GRANTED. 25 Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3 26 With respect to RadioShack’s motion in limine number 3, Tom Nabozny may testify to 27 facts he observed, not lay opinions, and may testify to his conversation with Donna Ocampo, a 28 decision-maker in plaintiff’s case (the “go-getter” conversation). He must stick to the factual observations unless the defense opens the door. This motion is accordingly GRANTED IN PART. 1 2 3 Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4 RadioShack’s motion in limine number 4 regarding settlements with employees is GRANTED. * 4 5 * * Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Nos. 1 and 2 6 Plaintiff’s motion in limine numbers 1 and 2 are GRANTED. Expert Finkelman will not 7 be allowed to testify, unless the Court rules otherwise based on the evidence presented at trial. 8 Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3 recent 10-K available. The parties should be aware that, if plaintiff prevails and the jury finds 11 For the Northern District of California Plaintiff’s motion in limine number 3 is GRANTED. RadioShack shall provide the most 10 United States District Court 9 punitive damages should be awarded, the parties should be prepared to present their respective 12 cases as to punitive damages. 13 Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 14 Plaintiff’s motion in limine is deemed timely. The motion is DENIED TO THE 15 FOLLOWING EXTENT: 16 trial. Mr. Peterson and Mr. Gonsolin will be allowed to testify for the defense as to this 17 document. 18 Exhibit No. 45 will be allowed in, assuming a proper foundation is laid at * * * 19 Two caveats to the rulings above: Any denial above does not mean that the evidence at issue in 20 the motion is admitted into evidence — it must still be moved into evidence, subject to other 21 possible objections, at trial. And, a grant of a motion in limine does not exclude the evidence 22 under any and all circumstances; the beneficiary of a grant may open the door to the disputed 23 evidence, for example. 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 11, 2012. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?