Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04233/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04233-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER 

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 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SHANNON CAMPBELL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and 

MICHAEL STUART, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK

13-CV-00233-LHK 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER 

MARK ENNIS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and 

MICHAEL STUART, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Plaintiff Campbell’s Attorney: G. Whitney Leigh 

Plaintiff Ennis’s Attorney: Matthew A. Siroka 

Defendants’ Attorneys: John M. Simpson; Michelle C. Pardo; Peter Harold Mason; Ruby H. Kazi; 

and paralegal Cindy McClellan 

A pre-trial conference was held on January 22, 2015. At the pretrial conference, the Court 

made the following rulings on the record: 

TRIAL SCHEDULE: Trial will take place on February 9, 2015; February 10, 2015; February 13, 

2015; February 17, 2015; February 20, 2015; February 23, 2015; and February 24, 2015. Unless 

otherwise specified below, trial will take place from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with a lunch break 

from noon to 1:00 p.m. There will be an approximately 15 minute break at about 10:30 a.m., and 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 285 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER 

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 

For the Northern District of California 

two approximately 10 minute breaks at about 2:15 p.m. and about 3:30 p.m. each day. On 

February 10, 2015, the trial will recess at 3:15 p.m. 

TIME LIMITS: The parties shall have 40 minutes per side for opening statements. The parties 

shall have 13 hours of evidence per side. The parties shall have 70 minutes per side for closing 

arguments. Plaintiffs’ counsel may divide their time as they see fit. 

JURORS: The Court will empanel nine jurors. Each side may exercise up to four peremptory 

challenges. 

VOIR DIRE: The Court will conduct voir dire. The Court will allow 15 minutes of attorney voir 

dire per side. By February 6, 2015, the parties shall file a joint list of witnesses, law firms, 

attorneys, and support staff, along with trial dates and times, to be distributed during jury selection. 

The parties shall bring 40 copies of the joint list on February 9, 2015. 

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS: The Court has filed a proposed set of preliminary jury 

instructions with annotations. ECF No. 283. Pursuant to that order, the parties shall file any 

objections by January 26, 2015. 

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS: Defendants have filed proposed substantive jury instructions. 

ECF No. 276. By January 26, 2015, Plaintiffs shall file a brief not to exceed four pages in length 

listing their principal objections to Defendants’ proposed substantive jury instructions. Defendants 

shall file an opposition not to exceed four pages in length by January 30, 2015. 

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: Per the parties’ agreement, there will be no bifurcation on punitive 

damages. 

DISPUTED LEGAL ISSUES: For the reasons stated on the record, the Court made the following 

rulings on disputed questions of law: 

1. Campbell may not base her UCL unlawful claim on the common law torts of assault and 

battery. Nor may she base her UCL unlawful on any alleged violation that the Court has 

already dismissed (e.g., section 647c of the California Penal Code) or on any alleged 

violation that was not presented to the Court at summary judgment (e.g., the Oakland 

permit or permit ordinance). Campbell may base her UCL unlawful claim on the Ralph Act 

and Bane Act only. 

2. Plaintiffs must show “harm” as a required element under the Ralph Act. 

3. Plaintiffs’ Bane Act claim, predicated on section 43 of the California Civil Code, covers 

Plaintiffs’ right to be free from “bodily restraint or harm.” 

4. Plaintiffs’ animal rights activism and membership in HTE constitute a “political affiliation” 

for purposes of the Ralph Act. 

5. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice. ECF No. 281. 

SUPPLEMENTAL FILINGS: 

1. Plaintiffs’ Animal Rights Activism: By January 26, 2015, the parties shall file a joint 

stipulation indicating that Plaintiffs are animal rights activists who demonstrate against and 

videotape what Plaintiffs consider to be the mistreatment of circus animals; that their 

activism and membership in HTE constitutes a political affiliation for purposes of the Ralph 

Act; and any other facts concerning Plaintiffs’ animal rights activism to which the parties 

will stipulate. 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 285 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER 

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 

For the Northern District of California 

2. Federal Injunction: By January 27, 2015, Plaintiffs shall file a proffer not to exceed two 

pages in length indicating what information Plaintiffs intend to introduce concerning the 

operative injunction at the time of the Oakland 2012 incident. By January 30, 2015, 

Defendants shall file a response not to exceed two pages in length. 

3. Oakland Permit: By January 27, 2015, Plaintiffs shall file a proffer not to exceed two 

pages in length indicating what information and arguments Plaintiffs intend to 

introduce concerning Defendants’ alleged violation of the permit Defendants obtained 

for the Oakland 2012 animal walk. By January 30, 2015, Defendants shall file a 

response not to exceed two pages in length.1

MOTIONS IN LIMINE: For the reasons stated on the record, after reviewing the parties’ briefing, 

considering the parties’ oral arguments and the record in this case, and balancing the considerations 

set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court made the following rulings on the motions in 

limine: 

1. Plaintiffs’ motion in limine no. 1 to exclude the fact that other claims and defendants 

have been dismissed is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiffs’ motion in limine no. 2 to exclude evidence that should have been produced in 

discovery is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Senglaub declaration will 

not be excluded. The identity of, and warning notice issued to, Christopher Blasting 

will be excluded. 

3. Plaintiffs’ motion in limine no. 3 to exclude expert testimony on rope usage is 

DENIED. 

4. Plaintiffs’ motion in limine no. 4 to exclude evidence of Plaintiffs’ prior bad acts is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Evidence of Plaintiffs’ own conduct at the 

August 7, 2012, incident in Oakland (“Oakland 2012”) or the August 18, 2012, incident 

in San Jose (“San Jose 2012”) will not be excluded. Evidence of Plaintiffs’ alleged bad 

acts at any event other than those two incidents will be excluded. 

5. Plaintiffs’ motion in limine no. 5 to exclude evidence of acts or statements by third 

parties, including Bolbol and Cuviello, is DENIED. 

6. Plaintiffs’ motion in limine no. 6 to exclude evidence of prior or ongoing litigation is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Subject to the Court’s ruling on the Oakland 

federal injunction, the Court may allow evidence of that injunction’s existence and the 

parameters set forth therein. The Court will exclude all other evidence of prior or 

ongoing litigation, except for impeachment purposes or if a party opens the door. 

7. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1 to exclude evidence of dismissed incidents, claims, 

and defendants is GRANTED. The Court will exclude any evidence relating to any 

alleged incident between Plaintiffs and Defendants other than the Oakland 2012 and 

San Jose 2012 incidents. Evidence relating to the Stockton 2007, Oakland 2008, 

Oakland 2009, Oakland 2010, Daly City 2011, San Jose 2011, Fresno 2012, and San 

Jose 2013 incidents are excluded. Any party who violates this order may be subject to 

sanction. 

8. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 2 to exclude evidence regarding the treatment or 

abuse of circus animals is GRANTED. 

 1

 The Court did not order this briefing at the pretrial conference but orders it herein. 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 285 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER 

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 

For the Northern District of California 

9. Defendants’ motion in limine no. 3 to exclude evidence that should have been produced 

in discovery is GRANTED. Thus, the two photographs purporting to show bruises 

sustained by Campbell at the Oakland 2012 incident are excluded. 

WITNESS LIST: The Court struck Plaintiffs’ witness no. 19, Skeet Ellis, for untimely disclosure, 

and notified Plaintiffs that Deniz Bolbol appears twice on their witness list. The Court struck 

Defendants’ witness no. 5, Geoff Taylor, for untimely disclosure. The Court overruled Plaintiffs’ 

objection to Defendants’ witness no. 17, Darren Baum, and overruled as moot Plaintiffs’ objection 

to Defendants’ witness no. 18, Keith Senglaub, who will not be called as a witness. By February 2, 

2015, the parties shall separately file amended witness lists consistent with the Court’s rulings. 

The Court will not entertain any additions to the witness lists. 

EXHIBIT LIST: In light of the Court’s rulings on the motions in limine, the Court struck Plaintiffs’ 

exhibit nos. 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 126, 133, 134, 136, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, and 

145, and Defendants’ exhibit no. 312. The Court overruled Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendants’ 

video exhibits depicting Bolbol and Cuviello. Defendants indicated that they would provide 

equipment for the jury to view any video evidence during deliberation. The parties shall agree on 

how such evidence will be shown and shall split the cost of providing the equipment. By February 

2, 2015, the parties shall separately file amended exhibit lists consistent with the Court’s rulings. 

The Court will not entertain any additions to the exhibit lists. 

VERDICT FORM: The parties shall file a joint verdict form by January 30, 2015. 

DEADLINES: The Court will strike any untimely submissions of the parties. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 23, 2015 _______________________________ 

 LUCY H. KOH 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 285 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 4