Silicon Laboratories, Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corporation

Filing 241

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 213 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SILICON LABORATORIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

CRESTA TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION,

11

Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
IN LIMINE
(Re: Docket No. 213)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
Now before the court are no fewer than 45 motions in limine by Plaintiff Silicon

13
14

Laboratories, Inc.1 A brief perusal reveals any number of motions that are at best unnecessary and

15

at worst ridiculous. For example, Silicon Labs’ third motion in limine asks the court to do nothing

16

more than apply Fed. R. Evid. 408, which would apply in any event. Similarly, the fourth motion

17

in limine, as well as numbers 38 through 42, seek to bar previously unidentified witnesses from

18

testifying at trial, which Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) already precludes. And on and on it goes.

19

Motions in limine are not designed to ensure the perfect trial. They serve a much more

20

limited purpose—to avoid errors at trial that the court cannot cure by sustaining an objection or

21

issuing a corrective instruction to the jury. Silicon Labs’ motions, taken as a whole, ignore these

22

boundaries completely.
All 45 of Silicon Labs’ motions in limine are DENIED. No later than Friday, March 11,

23
24

2016, Silicon Labs shall re-file no more than seven motions in limine—in one filing no longer

25

than 12 pages—that truly require intervention by the court. Defendant Cresta Technology

26
27
28

1

See Docket No. 213.

1
Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1

Corporation shall have until Tuesday, March 15, 2016 to file any opposition. The court will

2

consider the motions at the final pretrial conference on Friday, March 18, 2016.

3

SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: March 9, 2016

5
6

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE