Filed: May 04, 2017
Latest Update: May 04, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND MOTION TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES Re: Dkt. Nos. 83, 91, 90, 93, 86, 88, 89, 84, 85, 92 LUCY H. KOH , District Judge . Having considered the parties' briefing, the relevant law, the record in this case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court rules on Defendant's motions in limine as follows: Motion in Limine Ruling Defendant's MIL #1 Defendant's MIL #1 is DENIED because em
Summary: ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND MOTION TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES Re: Dkt. Nos. 83, 91, 90, 93, 86, 88, 89, 84, 85, 92 LUCY H. KOH , District Judge . Having considered the parties' briefing, the relevant law, the record in this case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court rules on Defendant's motions in limine as follows: Motion in Limine Ruling Defendant's MIL #1 Defendant's MIL #1 is DENIED because emp..
More
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND MOTION TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES Re: Dkt. Nos. 83, 91, 90, 93, 86, 88, 89, 84, 85, 92
LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.
Having considered the parties' briefing, the relevant law, the record in this case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court rules on Defendant's motions in limine as follows:
Motion in Limine Ruling
Defendant's MIL #1 Defendant's MIL #1 is DENIED because employee compensation
(ECF No. 83): may be relevant to (1) show reasonable reliance on Defendant's
Motion to exclude fraudulent concealment to the extent Plaintiffs were aware of these
evidence of the compensation packages, (2) to show intent to defraud Plaintiffs by
compensation of other showing that they were paid less than their colleagues, (3) to put
employees Plaintiffs' compensation in context within the company, and (4) show
how much similarly situated employees were compensated.
Defendant's MIL #2 Defendant's MIL #2 is DENIED because although Plaintiffs cannot be
(ECF No. 91): awarded benefit of the bargain or expectation damages, evidence of
Motion to exclude the value of Plaintiffs' stock options is relevant for other purposes,
evidence of the value of such as Plaintiffs' reasonable reliance on the fraudulent concealment
stock options and the measure of reliance damages.
Defendant's MIL #3 Defendant's MIL #3 is DENIED to the extent Plaintiffs' and
(ECF No. 90): Erdman's proposed lay opinion testimony about compensation for
Motion to Exclude people with resumes and skills similar to Plaintiffs is based on their
Testimony About personal experience. As far as the Court is aware, Plaintiffs and
Salaries of Employees of Erdman have not established that their personal experience reaches to
Similar Skill the market generally, but to the few companies where they have
worked and have been in positions of hiring people. Therefore, the
lay opinion testimony should be tailored to those experiences and the
reasonable inferences that can be derived from those experiences and
not generalized to the marketplace as a whole.
Defendant's MIL #4 Defendant's MIL #4 is DENIED to the extent it seeks to exclude all
(ECF No. 93): testimony from Thomas Erdman. Erdman was Plaintiffs' coworker at
Motion to Exclude TeleNav and had a critical role in Defendant's acquisition of their
Testimony of Thomas TeleNav division. Defendant hired Erdman and Plaintiffs at the same
Erdman time. It is apparent that Erdman went through similar experiences as
Plaintiffs and was subject to many of the same alleged
misrepresentations and actions constituting concealment. His
testimony is relevant as specific proof of the treatment of Plaintiffs
and in showing a pattern or practice of actions towards the former
employees of TeleNav. Erdman's testimony, however, must be
elicited through the establishment of a proper foundation as to each
point made, must comply with Federal Rule of Evidence 701 to the
extent Erdman seeks to provide a lay opinion, and must comply with
the rule against hearsay and its exceptions.
Defendant's MIL #4 is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiffs seek to
elicit testimony from Erdman about his lawsuit against Defendant
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
Defendant's MIL #5 Defendant's MIL #5 is DENIED because emotional distress damages
(ECF No. 86): are available for intentional torts such as Plaintiffs' fraudulent
Motion to Exclude concealment claim.
Emotional Distress
Damages
Defendant's MIL #6 Defendant's MIL #6 is DENIED because Plaintiffs propose sufficient
(ECF No. 88): evidence such that there is a "reasonable certainty" that damages
Motion to Exclude occurred. However, absent an exception to the rule against hearsay,
Evidence of Reliance the solicitation letters sent to Plaintiffs may not be offered for the truth
Damages of the matter asserted. Plaintiffs argue that the number of solicitation
letters shows that there was a high demand for Plaintiffs in the job
market. However, the existence of the letters could only create the
inference that there is a high demand in the job market if the factfinder
accepts the contents of the solicitation letters as true, that is, accepts
that the recruiter or entity sending each letter was seeking to fill a
position with Plaintiffs. Therefore, to introduce these letters Plaintiffs
must show that an exception to the rule against hearsay applies or that
the solicitation letters are being offered for a non-hearsay purpose.
Defendant's MIL #7 Defendant's MIL #7 is DENIED because Alissa Vickery's testimony
(ECF No. 89): Motion to is relevant.
Exclude Testimony of
Alissa Vickery
Defendant's MIL #8 Defendant's MIL #8 is DENIED. Federal Rule of Evidence 701's
(ECF No. 84): Motion to advisory committee notes indicate that courts may allow lay opinion
Exclude Value of Chen's testimony about the value of companies from an owner or officer of
eDriving Stock the business. Defendant has failed to show that the asserted valuations
are too speculative. With respect to the documentary hearsay
objection, Chen asserts that he will be able to authenticate the
document under the business record exception to the rule against
hearsay.
Defendant's MIL #9 Defendant's MIL #9 is DENIED because Lamb's and Kasitz's
(ECF No. 85): Motion to representations are relevant, at the very least, to Plaintiffs' reasonable
Exclude Kasitz's and reliance on Defendant's alleged fraudulent concealment and to
Lamb's Representations whether Plaintiffs are excused from performing their obligation to
"work together" to establish performance criteria.
Defendant's Motion to Defendant's Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED. Bifurcation of the trials
Bifurcate Trial (ECF will not save time because bifurcation may require the reading of two
No. 92) sets of preliminary and final jury instructions to the jury, two sets of
opening statements and closing arguments, two sets of examinations
of the same witnesses, and two sets of jury deliberations. Defendant
will not be prejudiced by a single trial because Defendant's financial
information is relevant to reasonable reliance and mitigation of
damages, and thus may be introduced during the liability phase trial.
Judicial economy favors a single trial. Any risk of confusion of the
issues can be cured with jury instructions. Moreover, Defendant's
decision to wait until the pretrial conference after failing to raise the
issue of bifurcation at the six case management conferences that have
been scheduled in the instant case since the beginning of 2016 weighs
against bifurcation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
