United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER FOLLOWING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE; BIFURCATING
TRIAL; AND ADDRESSING MOTIONS IN LIMINE [RE: ECF 145,
150]
BETH
LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge
The
Court held a pretrial conference on July 28, 2016, at which
time it addressed a number of trial issues; heard argument on
Motion in Limine No. 1 brought by Defendants and
Cross-Complainants Instacare Corporation and PharmaTech
Solutions, Inc. (collectively (“PharmaTech”); and
heard argument on Motion in Limine No. 1 brought by
Defendants and Cross-Defendants Shasta Technologies, LLC,
Calvin A. Knickerbocker, Jr., and Calvin A. Knickerbocker III
(collectively “Shasta”). The Court hereby orders
as follows:
A.
Scheduling
PharmaTech
and Shasta each are allotted a total of six hours of trial
time, those six hours to include opening statements,
examination and cross-examination of witnesses, presentation
of evidence, and closing arguments.
Trial
will be bifurcated. During Phase I of the trial, which is set
for September 7, 2016, the Court will hear all evidence
relevant to the enforceability and effect of the Binding Term
Sheet entered into by PharmaTech and Shasta on March 20,
2014. If the Court determines that the Binding Term Sheet is
enforceable, that determination may dispose of all issues in
the case. Any issues remaining for disposition after Phase I
will be addressed in Phase II of the trial, which is set for
September 12, 2016.
The
parties shall meet and confer regarding a list of issues that
should be addressed in Phase I. If the parties cannot agree
on a list of issues, PharmaTech and Shasta each shall submit
a three-page brief identifying all issues that should be
addressed in Phase I and briefly explaining the relevance of
each issue to the enforceability and effect of the Binding
Term Sheet. PharmaTech’s brief shall be filed on or
before August 12, 2016, and Shasta’s brief shall be
filed on or before August 17, 2016. On or before August 29,
2016, the Court will issue an order informing the parties
which issues the Court will hear in Phase I.
B.
PharmaTech’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude the
Following Evidence at Trial:
Any argument or other evidence that Plaintiff in Interpleader
Gotham Insurance Company breached the subject policy of
insurance by reimbursing Defendant Shasta Technologies,
LLC’s defense fees at the rate of 50% of defense
counsel’s invoices
PharmaTech
moves to exclude Shasta’s presentation of argument or
evidence that Gotham Insurance Company (“Gotham”)
breached the subject insurance policy by reimbursing
Shasta’s defense fees at a rate of 50% of
Shasta’s counsel’s invoices. PharmaTech asserts
that Shasta released any claims relating to the 50% rate of
reimbursement when Shasta entered into a settlement of
Gotham’s first interpleader action (“Gotham
I”). Shasta denies that it released claims relating to
the 50% rate of reimbursement in the Gotham I settlement, and
it argues further that the Gotham I settlement effected a
release of certain claims that Shasta had against
Gotham but not of any claims that Shasta may have
against PharmaTech. Consequently, Shasta argues,
PharmaTech cannot raise the Gotham I settlement in this case
to bar Shasta from challenging the 50% rate of reimbursement.
Finally, Shasta argues that PharmaTech’s motion is
procedurally improper in that PharmaTech has not identified
any particular evidence to be excluded.
It is
the Court’s view that PharmaTech may be correct in
arguing that evidence regarding Gotham’s asserted
breach of the insurance policy should be excluded. It appears
that Shasta may have waived any challenge to the 50% rate of
reimbursement when it settled Gotham I, or, alternatively,
that Shasta may be precluded from litigating Gotham’s
alleged breach because a necessary party to such litigation -
Gotham - has been dismissed from the case. However,
Gotham’s asserted breach of the insurance policy is
irrelevant to the issues to be tried in Phase I. Thus the
argument and evidence that PharmaTech seeks to exclude will
not be presented unless and until the Court reaches Phase II.
Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is
more prudent to defer ruling of PharmaTech’s motion
until completion of Phase I.
Consideration
of PharmaTech’s Motion in Limine No. 1 is DEFERRED.
C.
Shasta’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Expert
Report and Testimony of Andre
Jardini
Shasta
moves to exclude the report and testimony of
PharmaTech’s expert witness, Andre Jardini, as
irrelevant and unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Mr. Jardini, an attorney, offers expert opinion as to the
appropriate equitable allocation of the interpled insurance
proceeds between PharmaTech and Shasta. PharmaTech contends
that Mr. Jardini’s expert report and opinion meet the
requirements of Rule 702.
Rule
702 provides that a qualified expert may testify if
“(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b)
the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the
testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods;
and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the case.” Fed.R.Evid. 702. The
Supreme Court has held that Rule 702 requires the district
court to act as a gatekeeper to “ensure that any and
...