Anthony Fredianelli v. Stephan Jenkins et al

Filing 278

ORDER re Proposed Limiting Instruction on Third Eye Blind Inter Party Agreements. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/7/2013. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ANTHONY FREDIANELLI, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court No. C-11-3232 EMC STEPHAN JENKINS, et al., 12 PROPOSED LIMITING INSTRUCTION ON THIRD EYE BLIND INTER PARTY AGREEMENTS Defendants. ___________________________________/ (Docket No. 230) 13 14 As stated at the hearing on October 7, 2013, the Court shall allow Plaintiff to introduce the 15 Third Eye Blind Inter Party Agreements as evidence but subject to a limiting instruction. Below is 16 the Court’s proposed limiting instruction. Any objections shall be addressed prior to the 17 introduction of the evidence. 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 INSTRUCTION NO. 1.8 2 EVIDENCE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE – 3 “THIRD EYE BLIND INTER PARTY AGREEMENTS” 4 5 6 The document “Third Eye Blind Inter Party Agreements” is being admitted for a limited purpose only. You must consider it only for that limited purpose and for no other. The document “Third Eye Blind Inter Party Agreements” does not constitute the parties’ 7 contract but may be considered as evidence of what the terms of the parties’ oral agreement were. 8 Although the document refers to Band members being shareholders, the Court has already found that 9 there was in fact no agreement to this business structure. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 IT IS SO ORDERED 12 13 Dated: October 7, 2013 14 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?