Bolbol et al v. Feld Entertainment, Inc et al

Filing 215

ORDER RE FELD'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED EXHIBITS re 209 Objection filed by Feld Entertainment, Inc. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on February 5, 2013. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

DENIZ BOLBOL and JOSEPH CUVIELLO,
INDIVIDUALLY,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (dba
)
RINGLING BROS. and BARNUM & BAILEY )
CIRCUS); JAMES DENNIS; MATTHEW
)
)
GILLET; and DOES 1-10,
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.: C 11-5539 PSG
ORDER RE FELD’S OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED
EXHIBITS
(Re: Docket No. 209)

16

Before the court are objections raised by Defendant Feld Entertainment, Inc. ("Feld") 1 to

17
18

proposed exhibits from Plaintiffs Deniz Bolbol ("Bolbol") and Joseph Cuviello ("Cuviello")

19

(collectively "Plaintiffs"). 2 The court is prepared at this time to issue orders regarding Exhibits 1 to

20

111; the court will address Exhibits 112 to 136 as necessary through the course of the trial.

21
22

Having reviewed the video clips that make up the content of Exhibits 1 to 111 and having
reviewed Feld’s objections and Plaintiffs’ responses, 3 the court rules as follows:

23
24

Exhibit 1

25
26

1

See Docket No. 209.

27

2

See Docket No. 208.

28

3

SUSTAINED-IN-PART. The video portion of the exhibit is relevant
and probative to lack of accident, motive, and intent. See Fed. R. Evid.
402, 404(b)(2). Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. The audio portion,

See Docket No. 212.
1

Case No.: 11-5539 PSG
ORDER

1
2

Exhibit 2

3
4

Exhibit 3

5
6

Exhibit 4

7

Exhibit 5

9

Exhibit 6

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

Exhibit 7

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15

20

Exhibit 16
21

Exhibit 17
22

Exhibit 18
23

Exhibit 19
24

Exhibit 20
25

Exhibit 21
26

Exhibit 22
27

Exhibit 23
28

Case No.: 11-5539 PSG
ORDER

however, may not be introduced because the statements by the
filmmakers would be unfairly prejudicial and has minimal probative
value. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
accident, motive, and intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2). Feld
has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
accident, motive, and intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2). Feld
has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
accident, motive, and intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2). Feld
has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Exhibit 24
Exhibit 25
Exhibit 26
Exhibit 27
Exhibit 28
Exhibit 29
Exhibit 30
Exhibit 31
Exhibit 32

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

Exhibit 33

11
12

Exhibit 34

13

Exhibit 35
Exhibit 36

14

Exhibit 37

15
16
17

Exhibit 38

18
19

Exhibit 39

20
21

Exhibit 40

22
23

Exhibit 41

24
25

Exhibit 42

26
27

Exhibit 43

28

Exhibit 44
Case No.: 11-5539 PSG
ORDER

OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative as to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
SUSTAINED. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
SUSTAINED-IN-PART. Feld has not shown how other video is
relevant or should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. The
audio portion, however, may not be introduced because the statements
by the filmmakers would be unfairly prejudicial and has minimal
probative value. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
SUSTAINED. Feld claims that this footage was not disclosed or
exchanged prior to the pre-trial conference on January 31, 201.3. Per
the court’s order at that conference, any video not disclosed and
produced at that point was not admissible. See Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
3

1

Exhibit 45

2

Exhibit 46

3
4

Exhibit 47

5
6

Exhibit 48

7
8

Exhibit 49

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Exhibit 50

11
12
13

Exhibit 51

14

Exhibit 52

15

Exhibit 53

16

Exhibit 54

17
18

Exhibit 55

19
20

Exhibit 56

21
22

Exhibit 57

23
24

Exhibit 58

25
26

Exhibit 59

27
28

4

should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
SUSTAINED. Feld claims that this footage was not disclosed or
exchanged prior to the pre-trial conference on January 31, 201.3. Per
the court’s order at that conference, any video not disclosed and
produced at that point was not admissible. See Docket No. 201.
Plaintiffs also agree to withdraw this exhibit.4
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
SUSTAINED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because this clip was not on
the court’s copy of the DVD with the exhibits, it has not had an
opportunity to view the clip. The court sustains Feld’s objection, but
Plaintiffs may resubmit the exhibit for the court’s consideration.
SUSTAINED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because this clip was not on
the court’s copy of the DVD with the exhibits, it has not had an
opportunity to view the clip. The court sustains Feld’s objection, but
Plaintiffs may resubmit the exhibit for the court’s consideration.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.

See Docket No. 212.
4

Case No.: 11-5539 PSG
ORDER

1

Exhibit 60

2
3

Exhibit 61

4
5

Exhibit 62

6
7

Exhibit 63

8
9

Exhibit 64

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Exhibit 65

12
13

Exhibit 66

14
15

Exhibit 67

16
17

Exhibit 68

18
19

Exhibit 69

20
21

Exhibit 70

22
23

Exhibit 71

24
25

Exhibit 72

26
27

Exhibit 73

28

Case No.: 11-5539 PSG
ORDER

Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit
5

1
2
3

Exhibit 74
Exhibit 75

4
5

Exhibit 76

6
7

Exhibit 77

8
9

Exhibit 78

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Exhibit 79

12
13
14

Exhibit 80

15

Exhibit 81

16

Exhibit 82

17

Exhibit 83

18

Exhibit 84

19

Exhibit 85

20

Exhibit 86

21

Exhibit 87

22

Exhibit 88

23

Exhibit 89

24

Exhibit 90

25
26

Exhibit 91
27
28

Case No.: 11-5539 PSG
ORDER

may only be used to show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 402; Docket No. 201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit may only be used to
show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R. Evid. 402; Docket No.
201.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. To the extent that
the video references actions taken against someone other than
Plaintiffs, it may be offered only to show lack of accident or mistake or
to show intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2).
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. To the extent that
the video references actions taken against someone other than
Plaintiffs, it may be offered only to show lack of accident or mistake or
6

1

Exhibit 92

2

Exhibit 93

3

Exhibit 94

4

Exhibit 95

5

Exhibit 96

6

Exhibit 97

7
8
9

Exhibit 98

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Exhibit 99

13
14

Exhibit 100

15
16
17

Exhibit 101

18
19

Exhibit 102

20
21
22

Exhibit 103

23
24

Exhibit 104

25
26
27

Exhibit 105

28

Case No.: 11-5539 PSG
ORDER

to show intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2).
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. But the exhibit may only be used to
show lack of mistake or accident. See Fed. R. Evid. 402; Docket No.
201.
SUSTAINED. References to animal mistreatment in these videos are
inflammatory and the unfair prejudice that would result is outweighed
by the probative value of this video. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The video
also contains impermissible hearsay, see Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, and
Plaintiffs have not provided an exception for that hearsay.
SUSTAINED. References to animal mistreatment in these videos are
inflammatory and the unfair prejudice that would result is outweighed
by the probative value of this video. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The video
also contains impermissible hearsay, see Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, and
Plaintiffs have not provided an exception for that hearsay.
SUSTAINED. References to animal mistreatment in these videos are
inflammatory and the unfair prejudice that would result is outweighed
by the probative value of this video. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The video
also contains impermissible hearsay, see Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, and
Plaintiffs have not provided an exception for that hearsay.
SUSTAINED. References to animal mistreatment in these videos are
inflammatory and the unfair prejudice that would result is outweighed
by the probative value of this video. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The video
also contains impermissible hearsay, see Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, and
Plaintiffs have not provided an exception for that hearsay.
SUSTAINED. References to animal mistreatment in these videos are
inflammatory and the unfair prejudice that would result is outweighed
by the probative value of this video. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The video
also contains impermissible hearsay, see Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, and
Plaintiffs have not provided an exception for that hearsay.
SUSTAINED. References to animal mistreatment in these videos are
inflammatory and the unfair prejudice that would result is outweighed
by the probative value of this video. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The video
also contains impermissible hearsay, see Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, and
Plaintiffs have not provided an exception for that hearsay.
SUSTAINED. References to animal mistreatment in these videos are
inflammatory and the unfair prejudice that would result is outweighed
by the probative value of this video. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The video
also contains impermissible hearsay, see Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, and
Plaintiffs have not provided an exception for that hearsay.
SUSTAINED. References to animal mistreatment in these videos are
inflammatory and the unfair prejudice that would result is outweighed
by the probative value of this video. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The video
7

1
2

Exhibit 106

3
4

Exhibit 107

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Exhibit 108
Exhibit 109
Exhibit 110
Exhibit 111

also contains impermissible hearsay, see Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, and
Plaintiffs have not provided an exception for that hearsay.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent and to motive. See Fed. R. Evid. 402,
404(b)(2). Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in
fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. The exhibit is relevant and probative to lack of
mistake or accident and to intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 404(b)(2).
Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or should in fairness be
shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
OVERRULED. Feld has not shown how other video is relevant or
should in fairness be shown. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: February 5, 2013
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

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

8
Case No.: 11-5539 PSG
ORDER