Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02060/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02060-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROBERT FEDUNIAK and MAUREEN 

FEDUNIAK,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02060-BLF 

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

The Court held a pretrial conference on April 23, 2015 and a Daubert1hearing on April 24, 

2015. With respect to the parties’ motions in limine, the Court rules as follows:

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(1) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence of Encroachment of 

Structures onto Open Space Easement

Plaintiffs allege in this action that Defendant has not paid them the full diminution in the 

value of the property caused by the easement. Defendant moves to exclude from the diminution 

calculation any evidence regarding the encroachment onto the easement of existing structures on 

the property. 

The motion is GRANTED with the understanding that Plaintiffs’ counsel may seek court 

approval to raise this issue on cross-examination of defense expert Michael Mason. 

 

1 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Case 5:13-cv-02060-BLF Document 146 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(2) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Evidence Not Included in Rule 26 

Disclosures

Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their disclosure obligations under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and (e) and on that basis moves the exclude certain witness 

testimony and documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c). The Court’s rulings with 

respect to those witnesses and documents are as follows:2

a. Mark Cameron: DEFERRED until trial, as he is a rebuttal witness.

b. Aengus Jeffers: DENIED.

c. Mike Canning: GRANTED on the basis that Plaintiffs have withdrawn this 

witness.

d. Roger Peterson: GRANTED.

e. Paul Gullion: GRANTED on the basis that Plaintiffs have withdrawn this witness.

f. William Srigley: GRANTED on the basis that Plaintiffs have withdrawn this 

witness.

g. Nancy Cave: DENIED; Defendant may depose Ms. Cave at Plaintiffs’ expense.

h. John Bridges: GRANTED.

i. Exhibits:

1. Exhibits related to encroachment (Exhs. 223, 225, 327-332, 334-339, 342): 

DENIED.

2. The contract to sell Plaintiffs’ home (Exh. 207): DENIED.

3. Correspondence from Plaintiffs’ lawyers (Exhs. 208, 225, 324, 333, 337, 

339, 341): DENIED.

4. Correspondence from Old Republic (Exhs. 335-336, 338, 342): DENIED.

5. Photographs of Plaintiffs’ property (Exh. 344): DENIED; and 

6. Attorney billing statements (Exhs. 346-347): DENIED.

 

2

The Court’s ruling is limited to the scope of testimony set forth in Defendant’s Motion in Limine 

No. 2.

Case 5:13-cv-02060-BLF Document 146 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(3) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Proposed Expert, Terry 

Lloyd 

GRANTED. A separate order will follow.

(4) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Craig Butorac 

Defendant moves to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert, Craig Butorac, on the 

bases that he was not timely disclosed as an expert under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26; his 

opinions are not relevant to the diminution in value caused by the easement when it was 

discovered in 2001; and his appraisal of the property as vacant land is based upon the unsupported 

assumption that the home will be razed. 

GRANTED on the basis that Plaintiffs have withdrawn this witness.

(5) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding 

an Alleged Offer to Purchase Plaintiffs’ Property for $9 Million and the Reason it 

was Terminated

In October 2014, Plaintiffs entered into a contract to sell the property for $9,000,000. In 

November 2014 the buyer cancelled the contract. Defendant moves to exclude evidence of the 

purchase contract and the reason that the buyer elected not to go forward. 

DENIED as to the purchase contract.

GRANTED as to evidence and argument regarding the buyer’s reason for cancellation. 

(6) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 6 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding 

Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Incurred Before the Coastal Commission 

Action was Tendered to Old Republic 

Plaintiffs claim that the attorneys’ fees and costs they incurred defending the Coastal 

Commission action are recoverable as damages for Defendant’s alleged breach of § 4(b) of the 

policy. Defendant moves to exclude evidence and argument regarding any defense fees and costs 

incurred prior to the date upon which Plaintiffs orally tendered the defense to Defendant in 

January 2012.

GRANTED.

Case 5:13-cv-02060-BLF Document 146 Filed 04/24/15 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(7) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 7 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding 

Plaintiffs’ Payment to a Charitable Foundation

Plaintiffs claim that a $125,000 payment to a charitable dune enhancement project in 

settlement of the Coastal Commission action is recoverable as damages flowing from Defendant’s 

alleged breach of § 4(b) of the policy. Defendant argues that the $125,000 payment is outside the 

scope of coverage under the policy. 

GRANTED.

(8) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 8 to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs’ Unreimbursed 

Expenses Incurred in Attempting to Mitigate their Damages Under the Policy

Defendant moves to exclude evidence of $131,861 expenses that Plaintiffs claim to have 

incurred as a result of Defendant’s alleged breach of § 4(b) of the policy. Defendant argues that 

those expenses are outside the scope of the policy. 

DENIED.

(9) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 9 to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiffs’ Alleged 

Emotional Distress

Defendant moves to exclude evidence of Plaintiffs’ alleged emotional distress on the 

ground that the emotional distress did not arise from financial deprivation traceable directly to 

Defendant’s nonpayment of a claim.

DENIED.

(10) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 10 to Exclude Evidence of Old Republic’s 

Subrogation Rights Against the Bonannos 

Defendant moves to exclude evidence of Old Republic’s subrogation rights against the 

Bonannos on the grounds that the evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial.

GRANTED.

(11) Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 11 to Exclude Testimony that was the Subject of 

Instructions not to Answer Based on the Attorney-Client Privilege 

Defendant moves to exclude testimony of Robert Feduniak and John Bridges regarding 

certain subject matter based upon their refusal to answer deposition questions on grounds of 

Case 5:13-cv-02060-BLF Document 146 Filed 04/24/15 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

attorney-client privilege. The Court’s rulings with respect to the subject matter at issue are as 

follows:

a. Robert Feduniak:

1. Information regarding why the California Coastal Commission sued 

Plaintiffs, including whether Defendant did anything to cause the Coastal 

Commission to do so: GRANTED.

2. The reason why Plaintiffs made a $125,000 payment to a charitable 

foundation as part of resolving a claim with the Coastal Commission and 

why Mr. Feduniak believed that Defendant should reimburse Plaintiffs for 

that payment: GRANTED.

3. The reasons why Plaintiffs did not ask Defendant to reimburse legal fees 

incurred in defending the action that was commenced by the Coastal 

Commission (and why they requested that certain other fees be reimbursed): 

GRANTED.

4. Whether Mr. Feduniak thought that the Coastal Commission litigation was 

covered by the title insurance policy, particularly since Plaintiffs made a 

claim under a homeowner’s policy: GRANTED.

5. How Plaintiffs felt when they learned that Defendant would not defend the 

case commenced by the Coastal Commission: DENIED.

b. John Bridges

1. Why Mr. Bridges did not tender the defense of the Coastal Commission 

action to Defendant: GRANTED. 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Testimony by Defendant’s Proposed 

Expert, Charles A. Hansen 

Plaintiffs move to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert, Charles A. Hansen, on the 

grounds that: (1) many of his opinions constitute impermissible legal opinions; (2) many of his 

opinions should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 402 and 403, as they concern issues 

Case 5:13-cv-02060-BLF Document 146 Filed 04/24/15 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

that are not relevant or for which any probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of 

confusion and/or wasting time; and (3) many of Mr. Hansen’s opinions reflect his interpretation of 

communications that the jury is equally capable of interpreting, and Mr. Hansen thus utilized no 

special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education in reaching those opinions as required 

under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. 

DEFERRED until trial. The Court will address Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding Mr. 

Hansen’s testimony on an objection-by-objection basis.

(2) Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Testimony and Opinions Expressed in 

the Supplemental Rebuttal Expert Report of Old Republic’s Expert Witness D. 

Michael Mason

Plaintiffs move to exclude the testimony and opinions expressed in the supplemental 

rebuttal expert report of Defendant’s expert witness Michael Mason.

DENIED.

If any of these rulings affect the parties’ proposed jury instructions, amended proposed 

instructions are to be submitted to the Court on or before May 8, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02060-BLF Document 146 Filed 04/24/15 Page 6 of 6