Villalpando

Villalpando v. Exel Direct Inc.

Good Law
161 F. Supp. 3d 873·2016 WL 2937480·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67551
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 20, 2016Case No. 12-cv-04137-JCSCalifornia14,320 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Spero, J.

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

I. INTRODUCTION

In preparation for a jury trial that commences on May 31, 2016, the parties have filed fifteen motions in limine (“the Motions”). The Court’s rulings on the Motions are set forth below.

II. ANALYSIS

Many of the parties’ motions in limine relate to a relatively small number of highly contentious issues. Therefore, the Court starts its analysis by addressing these issues and then addresses the remaining motions in limine individually.

*877 A. General Legal Standards Governing Motions in Limine

In the Motions, the parties seek exclusion of certain evidence and arguments pursuant to Rules 401, 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 401 provides that “[e]vidence is relevant if.. .it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and.. .the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Rule 402 provides that “[irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Rule 403 gives the trial court discretion to “exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.