Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 149

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL, AND SECOND ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/25/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

ELIZABETH ANN WILLIAMS,

Case No. 5:13-cv-03387-EJD

Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL, AND
SECOND ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN
LIMINE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 114, 116, 117, 120, 122, 126,

12
142
13
14
Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate trial (Dkt. No. 142) is GRANTED.
15
The Court rules on the parties’ motions in limine as follows:
16
1.

Defendants’ second motion in limine to exclude evidence of special damages

17
because they are inadequately pleaded in the second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 114) is
18
DENIED.
19
2.
20

Defendants’ fourth motion in limine to exclude documents that Plaintiff failed to

produce during discovery (Dkt. No. 116) is GRANTED. “If a party fails to provide information or

21
identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information
22
or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was
23
substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). Defendants’ first motion in limine to
24
exclude evidence of damages that Williams failed to include in her Rule 26 disclosures (Dkt. No.
25
112) is DENIED AS MOOT.
26
3.
27
28

Defendants’ fifth motion in limine to exclude evidence or argument about the

1
Case No.: 5:13-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL, AND SECOND
ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1

“ ‘loan modification runaround’ that plaintiff was purportedly subjected to between October 2009

2

and the inception of this action in June 2013” (Dkt. No. 117) is GRANTED.

3

4.

Defendants’ seventh motion in limine to exclude evidence or argument related to

4

late fees, accrued interest, or penalties (Dkt. No. 120) is DENIED. During the hearing on this

5

motion, Defendants conceded that this testimony is admissible.

6

5.

Defendants’ ninth motion in limine to exclude testimony of Plaintiff’s expert,

7

Douglas Minor (Dkt. No. 122), is GRANTED. The Court finds that the expert testimony is

8

inadmissible because it is based on unreliable methodology. See Fed. R. Evid. 702 (“A witness

9

who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in
the form of an opinion or otherwise if . . . the testimony is the product of reliable principles and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

methods.”); see also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592–93 (1993) (holding

12

that courts must make “a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology

13

underlying [expert] testimony is scientifically valid and whether that reasoning or methodology

14

properly can be applied to the facts in issue”). In addition, Plaintiff’s expert’s testimony is

15

inadmissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 because it was not timely produced during discovery.

16

6.

Defendants’ tenth motion in limine to exclude as hearsay testimony regarding loans

17

Plaintiff obtained or attempted to obtain from third parties (Dkt. No. 126) is GRANTED IN PART

18

AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff may testify about the fact that she obtained or attempted to

19

obtain loans from third parties. However, Plaintiff may not testify about the contents of out-of-

20

court statements made by third parties that relate to her efforts to obtain loans.

21
22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 25, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

26
27
28

2
Case No.: 5:13-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL, AND SECOND
ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE