Wu v. EAN Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 106

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 72 , 73 , 74 , and 87 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

JIAN WU,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
EAN HOLDINGS, LLC dba ALAMO
RENT-A-CAR, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-00188-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE:
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
(Re: Docket No. 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65,
66, 67, 72, 73, 74, and 87)

Before the court are the parties’ motions in limine. At yesterday’s hearing on these
motions, the court issued its rulings from the bench. This order memorializes those rulings. The

19
court ORDERS as follows:
20
I. GM’S MILS

21
22
23

1.

GM’s MIL No. 1
Wu’s expert Mr. McIlwraith may not speak to the condition of the right strut, because

24

McIlwraith did not offer an opinion about the strut in his report. McIlwraith may speak to when

25

the right strut was made available to him. With respect to eyewitness testimony about the right

26

strut, eyewitnesses may testify as to what they have seen. Of course, GM may cross-examine those

27
witnesses about their observations.
28
1
Case No. 5:13-cv-00188-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1

2.

GM’s MIL No. 2
Because the court finds that the probative value of photos of the injury is not substantially

2
3

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, those photos will not be excluded on

4

Fed. R. Evid. 403 grounds. 1

5

3.

6

GM’s MIL No. 3
GM’s MIL No. 3 is unopposed and GRANTED on that basis. Evidence of medical bills

7
8
9

actually paid may be submitted to the jury.
4.

GM’s MIL No. 4 seeks to preclude reference to Wu’s lost wages. Wu does not facially

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

GM’s MIL No. 4

11

oppose the motion, but would like to be able to discuss the impact of the accident on his

12

diminished self-confidence and heightened self-consciousness when speaking publicly incident to

13

his occupation. In light of Wu’s non-opposition, the court GRANTS MIL No. 4. While Wu may

14
speak more generally on the impact of the accident on his job, he may not make any claim about
15
16

lost wages past or future. If lost wages are implicated through Wu’s testimony, GM may

17

cross-examine Wu about what specific claims are at issue in this case.

18

5.

19
20

GM’s MIL No. 5
GM’s MIL No. 5 is unopposed and GRANTED on that basis.

6.

21

GM’s MIL No. 6
GM’s MIL No. 6 is unopposed and GRANTED on that basis. No reference to GM’s

22
overall size and wealth may be made at trial.
23
24

7.

GM’s MIL No. 7
GM’s MIL No. 7 seeks to exclude the use of the term strict liability, because it is not in the

25
26
1

27
28

See Fed. R. Evid. 403 (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing
the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence.”).
2
Case No. 5:13-cv-00188-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1

body of the CACI jury instructions, only the caption. 2 The court DENIES GM’s motion.

2

Cross-examination and attorney argument provide an adequate basis to protect GM’s interest on

3

this issue.

4

8.

5
6

GM’s MIL No. 8
GM’s MIL No. 8 seeks to preclude reference to dissimilar incidents involving struts

replaced in model year 2008-2012 Malibus. Wu believes such evidence is relevant to show that the

7
8
9

strut’s failure is not an isolated incident. GM counters that it need not argue that the rate of strut
failure was de minimus because there is no design claim remaining in this case. Because (1) there

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

are not going to be references to the strut’s performance in other contexts, (2) there are no design

11

claims remaining in this case, and (3) counsel has represented that GM will not rely on this

12

evidence at trial, the court GRANTS GM’s MIL No. 8.

13

9.

GM’s MIL No. 9

14
GM’s MIL No. 9 seeks to preclude McIlwraith’s expert opinion on Wu’s manufacturing
15
16

defect claim because he cannot say whether the strut failed because someone broke it or because

17

there was a manufacturing defect. Because the concerns implicated by GM’s motion can all be

18

addressed through a vigorous cross-examination, precluding McIlwraith’s testimony altogether is

19

not warranted. GM’s MIL No. 9 is DENIED.

20
21

II. WU’S MILS
1.

Wu’s MIL No. 1

22
Although the court understands the CACI instruction touches on the plaintiff’s lifestyle, the
23
24
25

court finds discussion of Wu’s income is not warranted in this case. Wu’s MIL No. 1 is
GRANTED.

26
27
28

2

CACI 1200 (“1200 Strict Liability—Essential Factual Elements”).
3
Case No. 5:13-cv-00188-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE