United States of America Ex Rel. et al v. Maxxam, Inc. et al

Filing 330

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/14/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine No. 1: Permit introduction of the bankruptcy court's findings of fact No. 2: Exclude Dr. Reimer's expert testimony No. 3: Exclude Dr. Iles' expert testimony No. 4: Preclude Defendants' experts from providing opinions that were not offered at their depositions Denied Denied Denied Granted, except to the extent the testimony relates to allegations raised by Plaintiffs subsequent to the depositions As stated at the final pre-trial conference, the Court rules on the parties' motions in limine as follows: v. MAXXAM, INC., et al., Defendants. / UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. RICHARD WILSON and CHRIS MARANTO, Plaintiffs, No. C 06-7497 CW ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

No. 5: Impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence No. 6: Preclude Mr. Hurwitz from introducing any documentary evidence at trial No. 7: Preclude Defendants from introducing exhibits that they produced after the close of discovery No. 8: Exclude evidence that contradicts admitted facts

Denied Denied, provided the documents were produced during discovery Denied

Granted generally with respect to admissions by Mr. Hurwitz and Maxxam; specific evidence will be dealt with on a case-bycase basis Denied

No. 9: Exclude evidence of appraisals of the Headwaters Forest conducted before the Headwaters Agreement was consummated No. 10: Exclude Dr. Tedder's 1993 timber appraisal No. 11: Preclude Defendants from arguing that, with respect to calculation of damages, they are entitled to an offset for any value received by the United States as a result of the Headwaters deal

Denied Denied

Defendants' Motions in Limine No. 1: Exclude allegations of Defendants' prior bad acts

Granted, except that Plaintiffs may introduce relevant testimony about the financing of Maxxam's acquisition of Pacific Lumber; information on previous forestry rule violations may be admissible if a government decision-maker testifies that the violations influenced the requirement that Pacific Lumber obtain approval of an SYP

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

No. 2: Exclude evidence of Pacific Lumber's pre-takeover harvest practices or financial condition

Granted with respect to subjective characterizations of Pacific Lumber's commitment to conservation; denied with respect to Pacific Lumber's financial condition Granted in part; Plaintiffs may not use words such as "rape," "plunder" or "savage," but may use words such as "decimate" Granted

No. 3: Preclude Plaintiffs from using inflammatory language to describe Defendants' timber harvesting practices

No. 4: Exclude evidence or argument regarding alternative methods by which the government could have acquired Headwaters No. 5: Exclude evidence of bankruptcy proceedings

Granted in part; testimony on the basic fact that Debtor Defendants declared bankruptcy and were reorganized will be permitted, but extensive testimony on the course of the bankruptcy proceedings will not Granted, except that Plaintiffs may argue generally about the importance of corporate responsibility and may introduce testimony that Solomon Brothers financed Maxxam's purchase of Pacific Lumber Granted, but the financial relationship between Mr. Hurwitz and Maxxam can be introduced in support of alter ego liability See separate orders

No. 6: Exclude evidence of or references to other corporate scandals

No. 7: Exclude evidence of Mr. Hurwitz's net worth

No. 8: Exclude evidence of Plaintiffs' new fraud claims

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

No. 9: Exclude evidence supporting Plaintiffs' withdrawn claims

Granted generally, but objections to specific evidence will be resolved on a case-by-case basis Denied without prejudice; the Court cannot rule on this motion without further briefing on the content of the reports Denied to the extent the report forms the basis of Plaintiffs' experts' opinions Granted Granted, but testimony on industry practice and definitions of technical terms used in regulations will be permitted Granted

No. 10: Exclude Plaintiffs' experts' supplemental reports

No. 11: Exclude evidence pertaining to the report, "Comments on the Pacific Lumber Economic White Paper" No. 12: Preclude Michael Gjerde from testifying No. 13: Exclude testimony on legal issues

No. 14: Exclude evidence of Defendants' financial gain from the Headwaters sale No. 15: Exclude evidence contradicting the government's record of decision from the Headwaters Purchase No. 16: Preclude Plaintiffs from referring to Mr. Hurwitz and Maxxam together with the Debtor Defendants using the label "Defendants"

Denied without prejudice; admissibility will be determined on a case-bycase basis Granted; Plaintiffs will refer to Mr. Hurwitz and Maxxam as "Defendants" and will refer to Pacific Lumber, Scotia Pacific and Salmon Creek by name Granted; the Court will explain to the jury the relationship between Plaintiffs, their counsel and the United States; counsel will refrain from stating that they represent the United States Granted

No. 17: Preclude Plaintiffs from referring to themselves as the United States and counsel from stating that they represent the United States

No. 18: Preclude Plaintiffs from referring to themselves as whistleblowers

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

No. 19: Exclude evidence of discovery disputes No. 20: Exclude allegations about Defendants' alleged destruction of evidence

Granted Granted, but Plaintiffs' experts may state that certain evidence relevant to the computer modeling could not be located and may explain the significance of that evidence

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/14/09

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

5