TVBI Company Limited v. Hong Thoa Thi Pham

Filing 126

FINAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER granting in part and denying in part 107 Motion in Limine; denying 113 Motion in Limine; granting 114 Motion in Limine; granting 124 Motion to Appear by Telephone. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/27/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TVBI COMPANY LIMITED, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

HONG THOA THI PHAM, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

FINAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING
ORDER

v.

9
10

Case No. 17-cv-5858 SI

Re: Dkt. Nos. 107, 113, 114

Defendants.

12
13
14

On June 27, 2019, the Court held a final pretrial conference in the above captioned matter,

15

which is set for jury trial beginning July 8, 2019. All parties were represented by counsel, with

16

plaintiff’s counsel Robert D. Hunt appearing on the telephone. The following matters were

17

resolved:

18

1.

Number of jurors and challenges: There will be a jury of 7 members. Each side

19
20

shall have 4 peremptory challenges.

21
22

2.

Voir dire: The Court will conduct general voir dire, including various of the

23

questions requested by counsel in their proposed additional voir dire filings. Counsel for each side

24

shall have up to 20 minutes total to question the panel. The parties are directed to meet and confer

25
26

concerning a neutral, non-argumentative statement of the case which can be read to the jury panel
at the beginning of the voir dire process; this statement shall be provided to the Court no later

27
28

than Friday, July 5, 2019 at 3:00 p.m.

1
2

3.

Jury instructions: The Court received proposed jury instructions from the parties.

3

Since all substantive claims are predicated on California law, state CACI instruction forms have

4

been used. The Court will instruct counsel on the instructions to be given prior to closing argument.

5
6

4.

Trial exhibits: No later than Wednesday, July 3, 2019, the parties shall submit their

7
8
9
10

trial exhibits, in binders with numbered tabs separating and identifying each exhibit and with an
index. The Court shall be provided with three sets (the originals for the file, one set for the Court
and one set for the witnesses).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

5.

Timing of trial: Each side estimates that presentation of its case will take 2 days.

Thus, based on a 4 day trial estimate, the Court sets the following time limits: each side shall have

14
up to 30 minutes to present opening statements; each side shall have 7 hours total for presentation
15
16
17

of evidence, which includes direct and cross-examination and presentation of all exhibits; and each
side shall have up to 45 minutes for closing argument.

18
19
20
21

6.

Trial schedule: Jury selection will begin on July 8, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. The trial day

runs from 8:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., with a 15 minute break at 10:00 a.m., a 30 minute break at noon
and a 15 minute break at 2:00 p.m., all times approximate. The Court does not hear trials on Fridays,

22
although juries may continue to deliberate on Fridays.
23
24
25

7.

Motions in limine: The parties filed 3 motions in limine. Docket Nos. 107, 113,

26

114. After consideration of the arguments made in the briefs and at the pretrial conference, the

27

Court rules as follows:

28

Plaintiffs’ motion #1, to exclude any argument by defendants that plaintiff must compensate
2

1
2

defendants for any alleged losses:

DENIED. Defendants’ answer includes affirmative defenses

of off-set and unjust enrichment, which they may seek to prove.

3

Plaintiffs’ motion #2, to exclude evidence not produced by March of 2019: GRANTED.

4

Defendant’s motion #1, to exclude evidence of Ms. Pham’s sale of commercial real estate:

5
6

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Evidence of the sale will not be allowed, except in the
following three situations: (1) If defendant Pham introduces any evidence that she used income or

7
8
9
10

the sale proceeds from the San Jose Office Building to fund the Lido Nightclub; (2) If defendant
Pham introduces any evidence that she is or was financially poor; and (3) If the issue of punitive
damages goes to the jury.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

8.

Other Matters: Punitive damages will not be bifurcated. Summary judgment was

granted only as to Causes of Action 2 and 5. Thus plaintiffs must prove up all elements of the other

14
causes of action asserted, although they may rely on findings of fact made in the order granting
15
16
17

partial summary judgment. The Court will read the requested findings at an appropriate time after
trial begins.

18

At the Pre-Trial Conference, plaintiff voluntarily agreed to dismiss the first (derivative

19

breach of fiduciary duty), third (derivative conversion and embezzlement), sixth (derivative

20

fraudulent transfer) and seventh (direct fraudulent transfer) causes of action. Thus the only claims

21

remaining for trial are the second (breach of fiduciary duty), fourth (direct conversion and

22
embezzlement) and fifth (breach of contract) causes of action.
23
24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 27, 2019
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

28
3