Sierra Development Company v. Chartwell Advisory Group Ltd.

Filing 638

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE granting ECF No. 583 Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Jeremy Aguero; denying as moot ECF No. 584 Motion to Exclude Evidence Re the Court's Prior Summary Judgment Orders; denying ECF No. 588 Motion to Preclude Testimony Based on Non-Preserved Evidence and for a Negative Evidentiary Inference; denying without prejudice ECF No. 592 Motion to Exclude All Evidence Not Produced in Discovery and granting ECF No. 592 Motion t o Exclude All Evidence and Argument Re Legal Theories Not Alleged in the Pleadings; denying ECF No. 593 Motion to Exclude All Evidence or Computations of Unjust Enrichment Damages and to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Richard Ostiller; d enying as moot ECF No. 587 Motion to Allow the Use of Video Clips from Depositions in Opening Statements; denying without prejudice ECF No. 589 Motion to Exclude Evidence of Work Done by Chartwell for Non-Parties; denying without pr ejudice ECF No. 590 Motion to Exclude Any Evidence that Counterclaim Defendants had the "Right to a Refund"; denying as moot ECF No. 585 Motion to Preclude Chartwell from Referring to the Harrah's Parties Collectively as "Caesars"; denying as moot ECF No. 586 Motion to Preclude Chartwell from Referring to the MGM Parties Collectively as "MGM" and/or "Mandalay." Signed by District Judge Roger T. Benitez on 5/4/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11
12
13
14

SIERRA DEVELOPMENT CO.
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHARTWELL ADVISORY GROUP,
LTD.

15

-----------------------------------------------

17

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Defendant.

16

CASE NO. 13cv602 BEN (VPC)

CHARTWELL ADVISORY GROUP,
LTD.

18
19
20
21

Counterclaimant,
vs.
SIERRA DEVELOPMENT CO., et
al.,
Counterdefendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A1. Chartwell’s Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Jeremy
Aguero [ECF No. 583]. Granted. Jeremy Aguero is prohibited from testifying and
offering his legal opinions or legal/factual conclusions which invade the province of
the Court.
-1-

1

A2. Chartwell’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding

2 this Court’s Prior Summary Judgment Orders [ECF No. 584]. In view of the waiver
3 of jury trial, this motion is denied as moot.
4

B1. Counterclaim Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine No. 1 to Preclude

5 Testimony Based on Non-Preserved Evidence and for a Negative Evidentiary
6 Inference [ECF No. 588]. Denied. Chartwell did not violate an obligation to
7 preserve evidence in anticipation of litigation until it reasonably anticipated
8 litigation with its clients. That occurred after 2008.
9

B2. Counterclaim Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude:

10 (1) All Evidence Not Produced in Discovery; and (2) All Evidence and Argument
11 Regarding Legal Theories Not Alleged in the Pleadings [ECF No. 592]. (1) Denied,
12 without prejudice. (2) Granted.
13

B3. Counterclaim Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude:

14 (1) All Evidence or Computations of Unjust Enrichment Damages; (2) the Expert
15 Testimony of Richard Ostiller [ECF No. 593]. Denied. Richard Ostiller may offer
16 his expert testimony regarding methods and means for calculating unjust enrichment
17 valuations, if any. See Certified Fire Prot. Inc. v. Precision Constr. Inc., 128 Nev.
18 371, n.3 (Nev. 2012) (actual value of recovery is usually the lesser of the market
19 value or the price defendant was willing to pay).
20

B4. Counterclaim Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine No. 4 to Allow the

21 Use of Video Clips from Depositions in Opening Statements [ECF No. 587]. In
22 view of the waiver of jury trial, this motion is denied as moot.
23

B5. Counterclaim Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude

24 Evidence of Work Done by Chartwell for Non-Parties [ECF No. 589]. Denied,
25 without prejudice. This type of evidence bears upon the unjust enrichment claim
26 that Chartwell helped orchestrate the industry-wide settlement with the State of
27 Nevada.
28
-2-

1

B6. Counterclaim Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine No. 6 to Exclude Any

2 Evidence that Counterclaim Defendants had the “Right to a Refund” [ECF No. 590].
3 Denied, without prejudice. Such evidence bears upon the claim that a right to a
4 refund was traded for a tax moratorium and the value of the trade.
5

B7. The Harrah’s Parties Motion in Limine to Preclude Chartwell from

6 Referring to the Harrah’s Parties Collectively as “Caesars” [ECF No. 585]. In view
7 of the waiver of jury trial, this motion is denied as moot.
8

B8. The Mandalay Parties’ Motion in Limine No. 1 to Preclude Chartwell

9 from Referring to the MGM Parties’ Collectively as “MGM” and/or “Mandalay”
10 [ECF No. 586]. In view of the waiver of jury trial, this motion is denied as moot.
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 DATED: May 4, 2017
13
14

Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-