Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00797/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00797-40/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

SHENZHENSHI HAITIECHENG 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CO., 

LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

REARDEN LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00797-JST 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE

Re: ECF Nos. 314, 315

The Court now rules as follows on two of the motions in limine filed in advance of the 

trial:

1

Motion in Limine No. 1 (ECF No. 314)

Defendants request that “SHST witnesses should not be permitted to appear at trial,” on the 

ground that default has been entered against SHST. 

Rearden cites no authority for this request, and the Court is aware of none. There is no 

reason that entry of default against one party should prejudice the presentation of evidence by the 

remaining parties. 

The motion is denied. 

Motion in Limine No. 2 (ECF No. 315)

Defendants request that the Court exclude “the Asset Purchase Agreement between MO2, 

LLC (‘MO2’) and SHST, the Asset Purchase Agreement between SHST and Virtue Global 

Holdings Limited (‘VGH’), and any other documents or purported agreements bearing SHST’s 

 

1

The Court has determined that argument regarding these motions is unnecessary. See Judge 

Tigar's Standing Order for Civil Bench Trials at 4.

Case 4:15-cv-00797-JST Document 323 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 2
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

‘chop’ signature (referred to collectively herein as ‘SHST Agreements’)” on the ground that VGH 

will not be able to authenticate those agreements at trial because “[t]here is no witness with 

personal knowledge that can authenticate the SHST Agreements.” ECF No. 315 at 1, 2.

Again, Defendants cite no authority for their request, which asks the Court to determine ex 

ante that VGH will be unable to authenticate a group of documents before VGH has even been 

allowed to try. 

The motion is denied. 

The Court will rule on the remaining motions in limine at the pretrial conference scheduled 

for November 10, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00797-JST Document 323 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 2