Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01808/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01808-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH CARDENAS and MACHELLE

CARDENAS, individuals; and EL PASEO

GRANDE, LLC, an Arizona limited

liability company,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10cv1808-LAB-KSC

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE

TESTIMONY OF DAVID VAN

ATTA

vs.

ROBERTSON WHITTEMORE,

individually and as trustee of the

SUZANNE WHITTEMORE MARTIAL

TRUST U/D/T/, DATED APRIL 27, 1995,

as trustee of the SUZANNE

WHITTEMORE BYPASS TRUST U/D/T,

DATE APRIL 27, 1995, and as trustee of

the ROBERTSON WHITTEMORE

LIVING TRUST, DATED APRIL 27,

1995, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

In its final pretrial order, the Court gave Plaintiffs leave to file a motion in limine to

exclude the expert testimony of David Van Atta. The motion was to be filed no later than

February 5, and Defendants were permitted to oppose it no later than February 7. (Docket

no. 98, § XIV.) The parties requested an early ruling on this to avoid the unnecessary

expense of having Van Atta travel to San Diego for trial, if his testimony were inadmissible.

Plaintiffs timely filed their motion, arguing that Van Atta’s proffered testimony would

merely give his own legal conclusions concerning the proper interpretation of the Declaration

- 1 - 10cv1808

Case 3:10-cv-01808-LAB-KSC Document 115 Filed 02/08/13 Page 1 of 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

of Restrictions. In other words, Plaintiffs seek to prevent Van Atta from testifying as an expert

as to the legal effect of the Declaration.

Although a witness’ testimony may embrace an ultimate issue for the trier of fact, Fed.

R. Evid. 704(a), an expert witness cannot given an opinion as to the witness’ legal

conclusions; deciding the applicable law is the exclusive province of the Court. Nationwide

Transport Finance v. Cass Information Systems, Inc., 523 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9 Cir. 2008)

th

(citing Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1016 (9 Cir. 2004); th

and Fed. R. Evid. 702); McHugh v. United Service Auto. Ass’n, 164 F.3d 451, 454 (9 Cir. th

1999) (expert testimony regarding proper interpretation of written agreement was

inadmissible).

Because the case will be tried to the Court without a jury, the introduction of

inadmissible evidence is not so serious a problem as it would be in a jury trial. See Harris

v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339, 346 (1981) (“In bench trials, judges routinely hear inadmissible

evidence that they are presumed to ignore when making decisions.”) Nevertheless, it is the

practice of federal courts to exclude inadmissible evidence when the issue is raised. See,

e.g., CIT Group/Business Credit, Inc. v. Graco Fishing & Rental Tools., Inc., 815 F. Supp.

2d 673, 678 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (granting motion in limine to exclude from bench trial an

expert’s testimony giving his legal conclusion).

Defendants did not file an opposition to the motion, so it appears they either concede

Plaintiffs’ reasoning is correct, or have abandoned their plans to offer Van Atta’s testimony.1

In any case, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the proffered testimony giving Van Atta’s

own legal conclusions would not be helpful to the Court, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 702, and is not

admissible. The motion in limine is GRANTED and the testimony it describes is ORDERED

EXCLUDED. 

Van Atta’s expert report, which is attached to the motion, shows that he has extensive

experience drafting declarations of covenants for real estate projects in California, and could

Defendants were to have provided the Court with a witness list by Thursday, 1

February 7 (see Final Pretrial Order, § XV), but the Court has not yet received it.

- 2 - 10cv1808

Case 3:10-cv-01808-LAB-KSC Document 115 Filed 02/08/13 Page 2 of 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

testify concerning customs and practices in this industry. The motion does not seek to

exclude that testimony, and experts are usually permitted to offer such testimony (assuming

it is otherwise admissible). See Actuate Corp. v. Aon Corp., 2012 WL 22585187, slip op. at

*1 (N.D.Cal., June 18, 2012) (“Subject to Rule 403, it is usually proper for an expert to

explain custom and practice to a jury.”) It is of course Defendants’ decision whether to call

Van Atta to offer this limited testimony, and such testimony might be the subject of other

objections.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 8, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 10cv1808

Case 3:10-cv-01808-LAB-KSC Document 115 Filed 02/08/13 Page 3 of 3