Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00440/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00440-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

STEEFEL, LEVITT & WEISS,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ASTOR HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

_________________________________/

No. C-03-0440 JCS

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER NO. ONE

On Friday, July 15, 2005, a Pretrial Conference was held in this matter. David W. Evans and

Scott Bloom appeared on behalf of Steefel, Levitt & Weiss (“Steefel”). Edward Vincent King, Jr.,

appeared on behalf of Astor Holdings, Inc., Robot Wars LLC, Smile/Astor Place Communications

(collectively “Astor”) and Stephen Plotnicki (“Plotnicki”). Edward D. Haas appeared on behalf of William

R. Pascoe and Pascoe & Rafton (collectively “Pascoe”). Having heard the arguments of counsel, the Court

makes the following Pretrial Conference Order. The substance of this Order was given orally at the Pretrial

Conference.

A. LENGTH AND CONDUCT OF TRIAL

1. Each side shall be limited to twelve (12) hours for the presentation of the direct examination

of its witnesses and the cross-examination of opposing parties’ witnesses, including all

objections and other time spent in front of the jury. With respect to this and other matters

and the Court concludes there are two sides in this case: accordingly, twelve (12) hours will

be allocated to the Astor parties and Plotnicki, and twelve (12) hours will be allocated to

Steefel and Pascoe.

2. The jury trial will begin on August 1, 2005, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom A, 15th Floor,

Case 3:03-cv-00440-JCS Document 202 Filed 07/22/05 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

United States District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. 

Counsel are instructed to be present at 8:15 a.m. on all trial days. The length of the trial will

be not more than eight (8) trial days. All parties are to be on time and prepared to proceed

with their witnesses. If any party is not prepared to present its next witness at the

conclusion of the preceding witness, that party will be deemed to have rested that portion

of its case, e.g., case-in-chief, rebuttal. Any party may present its direct examination of a

witness when that witness first appears. 

3. All witnesses, except for expert witnesses, named parties, designated party representatives,

and Mr. Schochet, are excluded from the courtroom during the testimony of all other

witnesses.

4. The Court will conduct voir dire as set forth in the script previously distributed to the parties

and filed in the court record. The parties are directed to meet and confer and present to

the Court at the next Pretrial Conference an agreed-upon statement describing generally the

claims at issue in this case. That statement will be included in the Court’s voir dire. Each

side, Steefel/Pascoe and Astor/Plotnicki, shall have four (4) peremptory challenges.

5. Opening statements will be limited to one-half hour for Steefel, one-half hour for Pascoe,

and one-half hour collectively for Astor and Plotnicki. 

6. The order of the presentation of the evidence will proceed as follows:

First, Steefel will present its case-in-chief. Second, Pascoe will present its case-in-chief. 

Third, Astor and Ploticki will present their case(s)-in-chief. Opposition and rebuttals will

proceed in the same order. 

7. Notices of witnesses and documents: At the beginning of the business day preceding the

day on which a party calls a witness on direct examination, that party must disclose to all

other parties the name of the witness and the exhibit numbers of the documents to be used

in connection with the direct examination. Accordingly, at the beginning of each trial day,

each party will provide to all other parties a list of the witnesses and documents to be used

on direct examination the following day. No witnesses or documents may be used other

than for rebuttal or impeachment that has not been previously disclosed to all other parties

Case 3:03-cv-00440-JCS Document 202 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

in the Pretrial Conference Statement. No witnesses or documents may be used on direct

examination that have not been disclosed in the daily witness lists.

B. JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1. The Court will give preliminary instructions from the Ninth Circuit’s Model Jury Instructions

– Civil as follows: 1.1-1.13, 2.1, and 2.2. These instructions will be given after the jury is

sworn and before opening statements. 

2. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer regarding the remaining jury instructions in

this case. The parties are ORDERED to provide to the Court, after such meet-and-confer

and no later than noon on July 22, 2005, a joint package of jury instructions. Those jury

instructions shall be in the order proposed by the parties to be given to the jury. The

package shall include, in their appropriate places, all disputed jury instructions with a

notation that those jury instructions have been previously disputed. In addition, where such

dispute has been resolved by the Court’s ruling on the motions in limine, in whole or in part,

that shall be noted with respect to such jury instructions.

C. CLAIMS

The following claims remain to be tried in this matter. 

1. Breach of Contract: Steefel v. Astor

(a) Steefel seeks recovery of attorneys’ fees allegedly due and owing from Astor.

(b) The only defense Astor asserts to its payment of these fees is that Steefel

committed professional negligence in its representation of Astor. This professional

negligence defense is limited to the professional negligence charged in the

counterclaims for breach of contract and malpractice described in Paragraph 3

below.

2. Breach of Contract: Pascoe v. Astor and Plotnicki

(a) Pascoe seeks recovery of attorneys’ fees allegedly due from Astor and Plotnicki. 

(b) At the Pretrial Conference, Astor waived its claim for fees for the time spent at the

hearing on the confirmation of the bankruptcy plan of Thorpe. 

Case 3:03-cv-00440-JCS Document 202 Filed 07/22/05 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

(c) The only defense asserted to this breach of contract claim is that Pascoe committed

professional negligence in its representation of Astor and Plotnicki. This

professional negligence defense is limited to the professional negligence charged in

the counterclaims for breach of contract and malpractice described in Paragraph 4

below.

3. Counterclaims for breach of contract and malpractice by Astor Holdings, Inc. and Robot

Wars, LLC against Steefel.

(a) With respect to the contract claim, only the following elements are disputed:

(1) did Steefel breach the contract by committing professional negligence;

and (2) what damages proximately resulted from that breach?

(b) With respect to the malpractice tort claim, only the following elements are

in dispute: (1) did Steefel commit professional negligence; and (2) what

damages proximately resulted from that conduct?

(c) Breach of Duty: Only the following breach of duty remains at issue in this

case, both as an allegation of breach of contract and as an alleged tort: did

Steefel fail to advise adequately on the consequences, in terms of the

potential for a contempt proceeding seeking punitive damages against the

Astor parties and Plotnicki, of the filing and maintaining of the New York

Action?

4. Counterclaims for breach of contract and malpractice by Astor Holdings, Inc. and Robot

Wars, LLC against Pascoe. 

(a) With respect to the contract claim, only the following elements are disputed:

(1) did Pascoe breach the contract by committing professional negligence;

and (2) what damages proximately resulted from that breach?

(b) With respect to the malpractice tort claim, only the following elements are

in dispute: (1) did Pascoe commit professional negligence; and (2) what

damages proximately resulted from that conduct?

Case 3:03-cv-00440-JCS Document 202 Filed 07/22/05 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

(c) Breach of Duty: Only the following breach of duty remains at issue in this

case, both as an allegation of breach of contract and as an alleged tort: did

Pascoe fail to advise adequately on the consequences, in terms of the

potential for a contempt proceeding seeking punitive damages against the

Astor parties and Plotnicki, of the filing and maintaining of the New York

Action?

C. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

For the reasons stated on the record at the Pretrial Conference, the Court rules as follows:

1. Steefel’s Motion in Limine #1 is GRANTED. No evidence will be permitted on the

following subjects: 

(a) The allegations that Steefel’s representation of Astor fell below the standard of care

or caused any damages except, other than with respect to the advice on the

consequences and filing of the New York Action described above.

(b) The allegations that Pascoe’s representation fell below the standard of care or

caused any damage other than with respect to: (1) the failure to adequately advise

on the consequences of filing and maintaining the New York Action; and (2) the

failure to follow the clients’ instructions at the confirmation hearing. 

(c) The allegations that Astor could have reached a better settlement in its disputes with

Thorpe. If any evidence of the settlement reached between Thorpe and Astor

offered in evidence, it may only disclose that the disputes were settled. The

settlement may not be in any way described or characterized.

(d) The Roski III Action, without leave of Court.

2. Steefel’s Motion in Limine #2 is GRANTED. No evidence regarding liability insurance

shall be introduced.

3. Steefel’s Motion in Limine #3 is GRANTED. No evidence of any settlement discussions,

correspondence, or offers of compromise shall be introduced.

4. Steefel’s Motion in Limine #4 is GRANTED IN PART. No evidence regarding the fees

incurred by Duane Morris in defending itself in the contempt adversary proceeding may be

Case 3:03-cv-00440-JCS Document 202 Filed 07/22/05 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

offered into evidence, unless and until Astor offers evidence sufficient to sustain a jury

finding that Astor would be responsible for Duane Morris’s fees in defending itself in the

contempt adversary proceeding.

5. Steefel’s Motion in Limine #5 is GRANTED. Evidence excluded with respect to Steelel’s

Motion in Limine #1 may not be introduced in connection with the breach of contract claim.

6. Steefel’s Motion in Limine #6 is GRANTED. Any expert opinion of Ms. McQuaid not

contained in her June 23rd report and June 30th deposition is excluded.

7. Astor’s Motion in Limine #1 is DENIED.

D. VERDICT FORM

The parties are to meet and confer and submit a jointly prepared verdict form to the Court.

E. WITNESSES

All parties are to meet and confer in an effort to reduce the number of witnesses that will be called

at trial. The parties are to present the Court with a final list of all witnesses that will be called. This witness

list shall be prepared jointly, and shall be presented at the next Pretrial Conference. The Court will read

this list to the prospective jurors during voir dire. Witnesses not disclosed by a party in the Pretrial

Conference Statement may not be called by that party other than for impeachment or rebuttal.

F. EXCERPTS OF DISCOVERY

1. All excerpts of discovery that were filed with the Court on or before July 1, 2005, are

considered timely. No later-filed excerpts will be accepted or should be filed without prior

Court permission, which will be granted only upon a showing of good cause.

2. In light of the Motions in Limine, the parties are directed to resubmit their excerpts of

record as follows:

(a) The parties are to meet and confer and decide which excerpts of record are still in

dispute.

(b) The parties will provide a joint package to the Court containing all excerpts of

record that any party believes it is still entitled to present to the jury after the rulings

on the motions in limine. This package will be marked as follows: (1) the submitting

party shall underscore the excerpts to be used; (2) the objecting party shall highlight

Case 3:03-cv-00440-JCS Document 202 Filed 07/22/05 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

in yellow the portion of the excerpts objected to and note in the margins the legal

basis for the objection; (3) this revised package shall be provided to the Court no

later than noon on July 22, 2005.

G. EXHIBITS

1. The parties have stipulated that all exhibits listed on the joint exhibit list may be admitted at

trial, and they are hereby admitted.

2. The parties have stipulated that any and all documents produced in discovery by the parties

in this litigation, and all documents produced by non-party Duane Morris LLP, are

authentic. 

3. Copies may be used as originals.

4. All parties shall exchange demonstrative exhibits not less than one (1) business day in

advance of their use.

5. The parties submitted exhibit lists in connection with the Pretrial Conference Statement. All

exhibit lists filed on or before July 1, 2005, are considered timely. No party may introduce

into evidence any exhibit not contained in an exhibit list filed on or before July 1, 2005,

except for rebuttal or impeachment. The parties are directed to file a consolidated list of

the exhibits previously timely disclosed (i.e., joint exhibits and separate exhibits of each

party) and shall include in the updated list the rulings that the Court has made with respect

to the exhibits thus far, including those rulings from the Motions in Limine where applicable. 

The new list shall also include any previously made objections filed by Steefel or Pascoe to

the separate exhibit list of Astor and Plotnicki where those objections are still being

asserted.

6. Astor and Plotnicki have made no objections to any of the exhibits offered by Steefel or

Pascoe, and accordingly any such objections are waived.

7. The requests for judicial notice of Steefel and Pascoe were not objected to and are

GRANTED.

Case 3:03-cv-00440-JCS Document 202 Filed 07/22/05 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

8

H. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATIONS OF FACT

The parties shall meet and confer regarding the manner of presentation of the agreed-upon facts to

the jury and shall present that to the Court at the next Pretrial Conference. 

I. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

A Further Pretrial Conference shall be held on July 27, 2005, at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 22, 2005

/s/ Joseph C. Spero 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00440-JCS Document 202 Filed 07/22/05 Page 8 of 8