Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 203

ORDER by Judge James Ware granting 194 Motion in Limine; temporarily granting in part and denying in part 194 Motion ; denying 195 Motion in Limine; granting 196 Motion in Limine; granting 198 Motion ; granting 199 Motion (jwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2009)

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc. et al

Doc. 203

Case5:07-cv-03952-JW Document203

Filed08/18/09 Page1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A., v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 07-03952 JW SECOND ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Akanoc Solutions, Inc., et al., Defendants. /

Presently before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Motions in Limine #16 and #17, (Docket Item No. 194), and Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 1 and Motion to Lodge Original Transcripts of Steven Chen and Juliana Luk. (Docket Item Nos. 190, 198, 199.) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motions to Lodge Original Transcripts of Steven Chen and Juliana Luk. The Court GRANTS Defendants leave and considers the parties' Motions in Limine in turn. 1. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 (Docket Item No. 190) to exclude evidence of financial condition of Plaintiff and its affiliates is GRANTED because the financial information that Defendants seek to introduce is far too broad to have any bearing on the issue of actual damages. Information regarding the financial performance of Plaintiff and its parent company is too tenuously tied to the determination of actual damages to meet even the broad relevance standard of Federal Rules of Evidence 401. Both cases cited by Defendants are distinguishable because they involve the relevancy of a party's profits from infringing activity to a determination of actual damages, while

Dockets.Justia.com

Case5:07-cv-03952-JW Document203

Filed08/18/09 Page2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Defendants in the present case seek to introduce evidence of the non-infringing party's financial success. 2. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 16 (Docket Item No. 195) to preclude Plaintiff from referring to "willful blindness" during opening statements is DENIED because the purpose of an opening statement "is to state what evidence will be presented." Leonard v. U.S., 277 F.2d 834, 841 (9th Cir. 1960); see U.S. v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 612 (1976). Accordingly, Plaintiff may state that the evidence will show willful blindness by Defendants. 3. Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 17 (Docket Item No. 196) to exclude Plaintiff's exhibits numbered 619 and 620 and expert testimony about actions taken after deposition is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff attempts to introduce exhibits or testimony by Mr. Wilson regarding the results of experiments or investigations that were not disclosed prior to Mr. Wilson's deposition. This is without prejudice to Plaintiff to demonstrate to the Court that these were previously disclosed.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: August 18, 2009

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

2

Case5:07-cv-03952-JW Document203

Filed08/18/09 Page3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Annie S Wang [e-mail] Brian S. Edwards [e-mail] David A. Gauntlett [e-mail] J. Andrew Coombs [e-mail] James A. Lowe [e-mail] Dated: August 18, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28