Garcia v. Fortis Capital IV et al

Filing 128

FIRST ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Rulings on Plaintiff's third motion 92 and Defendants' first, third, seventh, and eleventh motions 82 , 84 , 88 , 94 are DEFERRED. The parties shall be prepared to present argument on these remaining matters at the Final Pretrial Conference. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/8/2014. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-06491 EJD

ANGELICA GARCIA,

11

FIRST ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN
LIMINE

Plaintiff(s),
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

v.
[Docket Item No(s). 69, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90,
91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99]

FORTIS CAPITAL IV, LLC, et. al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15
16

/
Presently before the court are certain motions in limine filed by both parties. See Docket

17

Item Nos. 69, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99. The court finds these particular matters

18

suitable for decision without oral argument. Having considered the parties’ moving and responding

19

papers, the court rules as follows as to certain of Plaintiff’s motions:

20

1.

21
22

(Docket Item No. 69) is GRANTED.
2.

3.

27

Plaintiff’s fourth motion to exclude reference to the availability of a bona fide error
defense (Docket Item No. 95) is GRANTED.

25
26

Plaintiff’s second motion to exclude reference to attorney’s fees that may be awarded
to Plaintiff in this action (Docket Item No. 90) is GRANTED.

23
24

Plaintiff’s first motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert Brian Kleiner

4.

Plaintiff’s fifth motion to preclude Defendants from referencing or introducing any
previously undisclosed documents (Docket Item No. 97) is GRANTED.

28
1
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-06491 EJD
FIRST ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1

The court rules as follows as to certain of Defendants’ motions:

2

1.

3
4

liability insurance (Docket Item No. 83) is GRANTED.
2.

5
6

Defendants’ second motion to exclude evidence that Defendants do or do not have

Defendants’ fourth motion to exclude evidence of Defendants’ financial condition
(Docket Item No. 85) is GRANTED.

3.

Defendant’s fifth motion to exclude witnesses from the courtroom and instruct them

7

not to discuss their testimony with other witnesses (Docket Item No. 86) is

8

GRANTED. To clarify, Plaintiff and Robert Barnes are not subject to this order. In

9

addition, the court will allow Defendants to designate one other representative of the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

sole remaining defendant to be present during the proceedings, if they so choose.
4.

Defendants’ sixth motion to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s financial condition

12

(Docket Item No. 87) is DENIED subject to objections to specific questions or items

13

of evidence at trial.

14

5.

15
16

Item No. 89) is GRANTED.
6.

17
18

7.

Defendants’ tenth motion to exclude evidence of criminal convictions (Docket Item
No. 93) is GRANTED.

8.

21
22

Defendants’ ninth motion to exclude letters sent from Defendants’ counsel (Docket
Item No. 91) is GRANTED.

19
20

Defendants’ eighth motion to exclude messages on internet comment boards (Docket

Defendants’ twelfth motion for an order establishing the authenticity and foundation
for subpoenaed records (Docket Item No. 96) is GRANTED.

9.

Defendants’ thirteenth motion to exclude evidence that Defendants were required to

23

record debt collection calls or were required to maintain hard copies of recordings for

24

an indefinite period of time (Docket Item No. 98) is GRANTED. To clarify, this

25

exclusion applies only to evidence that would require foundational expert testimony

26

on the standard of care in the industry. Plaintiff is not precluded by this ruling from

27

introducing evidence concerning any of Defendants’ collections or recording policies.

28

10.

Defendants’ fourteenth motion to exclude (1) evidence of Plaintiff’s surgery to
2

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-06491 EJD
FIRST ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1

remove her spleen and portions of her pancreas, (2) her insulin deficiency or that it

2

may cause weight gain, or (3) that Plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to stress (Docket

3

Item No. 99) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is

4

GRANTED as to items (1) and (2) above, but is DENIED as to item (3). Plaintiff

5

may introduce evidence concerning information she received from her medical

6

records or doctors as such information may affect her state of mind. Plaintiff may

7

also introduce evidence about her condition during and after the telephone calls at

8

issue in this action.

seventh, and eleventh motions (Docket Item Nos. 82, 84, 88, 94) are DEFERRED. The parties shall

11
For the Northern District of California

Rulings on Plaintiff’s third motion (Docket Item No. 92) and Defendants’ first, third,

10

United States District Court

9

be prepared to present argument on these remaining matters at the Final Pretrial Conference.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: May 8, 2014
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-06491 EJD
FIRST ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE