Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03137/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03137-16/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VECTREN COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF ALAMEDA,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-3137 SI

ORDER EXCLUDING AUGUST 17, 1999

CITY COUNCIL MEETING VIDEO

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs about the admissibility of a video that the City wishes

to introduce as part of its case. The video consists of approximately 25 minutes of excerpts from a 2.5

hour video recording of an August 17, 1999 Alameda City Council meeting. 

The Court concludes that the proffered video should be excluded under F.R.E. 403. AP&T

witness Bill Garvine has already testified at length about the August 17, 1999 City Council meeting, and

thus the video excerpts would be needlessly cumulative. Given Mr. Garvine’s testimony, the probative

value of the video is minimal, particularly because the video relates to matters that occurred several

years before the contracts at issue were executed. The Court also finds that the introduction of the video

would be prejudicial in that the disc was only first provided to plaintiff on February 17, 2010, more than

a week after the start of trial, and the City did not disclose the speakers on the video clips at any point

during the discovery period. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03137-SI Document 186 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 1