Mendoza
Mendoza v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
DONNA MENDOZA, Case No. 18-CV-06414-LHK
Plaintiff,
ORDER ON DISPUTES IN JOINT
PRETRIAL STATEMENT
v. Re: Dkt. No. 99 INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., Defendant. 17 Before the Court are disputes raised by the parties in their Joint Pretrial Statement, ECF 18 No. 99 (“JPS”). Plaintiff Donna Mendoza (“Mendoza”) raises the issue of whether Indiana or 19 California law applies to Mendoza’s claim for punitive damages. The Court resolves that issue 20 below. 21 Defendant Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (“Intuitive”) filed only one motion in limine even though 22 the Court allotted each party three motions in limine. Instead of filing additional motions in 23 limine, Intuitive identified multiple evidentiary disputes in the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement. 24 Intuitive asserts that it “will move” to resolve these disputes. JPS at 20–21. Yet the time for 25 evidentiary motions was before the pretrial conference. The Court will not entertain more pretrial 26 evidentiary motions. Even so, to…