United States District Court, N.D. California
FINAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER Re: Dkt. Nos.
ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10, 2017, the Court held a final pretrial conference in the
above captioned matter, which is set for jury trial beginning
May 15, 2017. All parties were represented by counsel. The
following matters were resolved:
Number of jurors and challenges: There will be a
jury of 8 members. Each side shall have 4 peremptory
Voir dire: The Court will conduct general voir dire,
including various of the questions requested by counsel in
their proposed additional voir dire filings. Counsel for each
side shall have up to 20 minutes total to question the panel.
The parties are directed to meet and confer concerning a
neutral, non-argumentative statement of the case which can be
read to the jury panel at the beginning of the voir dire
process; this statement shall be provided to the Court no
later than Friday, May 12, 2017 at 3:00 p.m.
Jury instructions: The Court received proposed jury
instructions from the parties; substantial disagreements
remain between the parties. The parties are directed to meet
and confer to resolve as many disputes as possible. The
parties are further directed to provide to the Court no later
than Monday, May 15, 2017 a succinct statement of the
fundamental disagreements in the substantive instructions,
together with the (few) competing instructions reflecting
those disagreements. The Court will review same and inform
counsel prior to closing argument which substantive
instructions will be given.
Trial exhibits: No later than Friday, May 12, 2017,
the parties shall submit their trial exhibits, in binders
with numbered tabs separating and identifying each exhibit.
The Court shall be provided with three sets (the originals
for the file, one set for the Court and one set for the
witnesses). The parties represented at the pretrial
conference that they have stipulated to the admissibility of
all such exhibits.
Timing of trial: Plaintiff estimates that the trial
should take no more than 7-8 days, and defendant estimates it
will take no more than 5 days. Based on these estimates, and
a review of the other materials in the Joint Pretrial
Conference Statement, the Court will set the matter for a 7
day trial, as follows: each side shall have up to 45 minutes
to present opening statements; each side shall have 12.5
hours total for presentation of evidence, which includes
direct and cross-examination and presentation of all
exhibits; and each side shall have up to 1 hour for closing
Trial schedule: Jury selection will begin on May 15,
2017, at 8:30 a.m. The trial day runs from 8:30 a.m. until
3:30 p.m., with a 15 minute break at 10:00 a.m., a 30 minute
break at noon and a 15 minute break at 2:00 p.m., all times
approximate. The Court does not hear trials on Fridays,
although juries may continue to deliberate on Fridays.
Motions in limine: The parties filed approximately
16 motions in limine. Docket Nos. 102-107, 112-122. After
consideration of the arguments made in the briefs and at the
pretrial conference, the Court rules as follows:
Plaintiffs' motion #1 to preclude
evidence regarding MHM's net worth, financial stability
or fiscal results: DENIED without prejudice to raising
specific objections to specific questions at the time of
Plaintiffs' motion #2 to exclude
witnesses other than the parties' designated trial
representatives: GRANTED. Plaintiff has designated William
Hancock; defendant has designated Gwen Theus.
Plaintiffs' motion #3 to preclude
defendant from questioning or offering any testimony
regarding Lemme Insurance Group E&O exposure or claim:
DENIED without prejudice to raising specific objections to
specific questions at the time of trial.
Plaintiffs' motion #4 to exclude opinion
testimony from lay/fact witnesses: DENIED without prejudice
to raising specific objections to specific questions at the
time of trial.
Plaintiffs' motion #5 to exclude or
limit testimony of defendant's expert Robert M. Hall:
DENIED without prejudice to objecting to specific questions
and testimony at trial. In general, plaintiff's
objections go to the weight and not the admissibility of Mr.