Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01370/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01370-40/pdf.json

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

---

Case No.: 5:15-cv-01370-EJD

ORDER RE: EMERSON’S REQUEST TO “UN-ADMIT” CERTAIN EVIDENCE

1

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BLADEROOM GROUP LIMITED, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-01370-EJD 

ORDER RE: EMERSON’S REQUEST 

TO “UN-ADMIT” CERTAIN 

EVIDENCE

Re: Dkt. No. 821

Emerson moved to “un-admit” a group of exhibits it believes are inadmissible hearsay. 

Dkt. No. 821. Plaintiffs opposed the request. Dkt. No. 819. The court previously denied 

Emerson’s motion on the record. This order provides the reasoning underlying that ruling. 

I. EMERSON WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO THE EXHIBITS

Each of the 30 exhibits Emerson now seeks to exclude from the evidentiary record was 

admitted during trial without objection. Tr., Vol. 7, at 1385:12-1386:18 (Emerson’s counsel 

stating there is no objection to Exhibits 1430, 1435, 1437, 1446, 1452, 1458, 1479, 1491, 1590, 

1610, 1614, 1615, 1619, 1624, 1660, 1667, and 2095); Tr., Vol. 9, at 1839:21-1840:17 (admitting 

“agreed upon” Exhibits 1459, 1488, 1505, 1524, 1564, 1568, 1592, 1633, 1735, 1826, 2065 and 

2072 without objection); Tr., Vol. 12, at 2561:24-2562:8 (Emerson’s counsel stating there is no 

objection to Exhibit 2191). Plaintiffs argue that as a result, Emerson has waived any hearsay 

objection. The court agrees. 

Objections to evidence must be timely. Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1)(A). This rule requires an 

objection “be made as soon as the ground of it is known, or could reasonably have been known to 

the objector, unless some special reason makes its postponement desirable for him and not unfair 

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 847 Filed 05/09/18 Page 1 of 4
Case No.: 5:15-cv-01370-EJD

ORDER RE: EMERSON’S REQUEST TO “UN-ADMIT” CERTAIN EVIDENCE

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

to the offeror.” Jerden v. Amstutz, 430 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting 21 Charles Alan 

Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure § 5037.1 (2d ed. 2005)). “The 

requirement of timely and specific objections ‘serves to ensure that the nature of the error [is] 

called to the attention of the judge, so as to alert him [or her] to the proper course of action and 

enable opposing counsel to take corrective measures.’” Id. (quoting United States v. GomezNorena, 908 F.2d 497, 500 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

An objection is “timely” under Rule 103(a)(1)(A) “if it is made as soon as the opponent 

knows, or should know, that the objection is applicable.” Id. at 1236-37 (quoting 1 Jack B. 

Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 103.11). 

Here, the record shows that Emerson knew, or certainly should have known, that a hearsay 

objection was potentially applicable to each exhibit it now seeks to “un-admit.” According to 

Emerson, these exhibits are internal Facebook emails constituting inadmissible hearsay, and are 

not excluded from hearsay by the exception for coconspirator statements provided by Federal Rule 

of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). But Facebook was released from the trial on May 9, 2018, due to a 

settlement with Plaintiffs - and on that same day, counsel for Plaintiffs and Emerson each 

addressed the hearsay exclusion for coconspirator statements. Tr., Vol. 5, 998:11-12 (Plaintiffs’ 

counsel stating “[t]hat evidence would come in for a conspirator exception under the hearsay rule 

in any event”); 999:18-1000:5 (Emerson’s counsel stating, inter alia, “[s]o one of the things that I 

think we should be thinking about is the conspiracy issue,” and that evidence “may come in” 

under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)). There is, therefore, no reasonable explanation for Emerson to have 

waited until after the exhibits were admitted to object on hearsay grounds. 

Emerson attempts to explain its failure to object with a “running hearsay objection” it 

believes was permitted by the court. The record does not support Emerson on this point. Emerson 

relies on a side-bar conversation which occurred while Barnaby Smith was testifying, during 

which the following exchange occurred, in relevant part:

MR. HOLTSHOUSER: Our objection, I think, to this line of 

questioning is that we’re listening to a lot of hearsay and I anticipate 

its going to continue as to BladeRoom eliciting testimony as to 

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 847 Filed 05/09/18 Page 2 of 4
Case No.: 5:15-cv-01370-EJD

ORDER RE: EMERSON’S REQUEST TO “UN-ADMIT” CERTAIN EVIDENCE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

things that Facebook individuals say in meetings. 

We have documents. They speak for themselves. I think to some 

extent they come in. 

But if we’re going to have repeated questioning about Facebook’s 

side of conversations, I think I’d like to have a running hearsay 

objection to that.

And it should be excluded. They’re not a party opponent as to us. 

THE COURT: Ok. 

Tr., Vol. 6, at 1064:25:1065:8. 

The court did not intend to permit a continuing objection to any evidence by responding 

with “ok” to counsel’s statement about a running hearsay objection, but understands the record 

may be ambiguous on that point. But even construing the record to include an ambiguity, any 

continuing objection would have been limited to the terms of the request; that is; it would apply 

only to any “repeated questioning about Facebook’s side of the conversations” during Smith’s 

testimony - not to any documents admitted without objection. See United States v. Khan, 993 

F.2d 1368, 1377 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that to reserve a continuing objection, the moving party 

must “request that his earlier objection apply to all other like evidence”). Because the record does 

not support a continuing objection to the exhibits, Emerson cannot explain its failure by claiming 

one was established. 

Though the court recognizes it has “broad discretion in making evidence rulings and 

handling late objections” (Home Indem. Co. v. Lane Powell Moss & Miller, 43 F.3d 1322, 1329 

(9th Cir.1995)), and that it may grant a subsequent motion to exclude evidence after it has been 

admitted, it will not do so under these circumstances. Emerson should have known the exhibits 

were subject to a hearsay objection, and its untimely decision to object after the fact has unfairly 

prevented Plaintiffs from providing a curative response at the time admission. 

This ruling is dispostive of the issue since it applies to all of the exhibits identified by 

Emerson, whether or not they could be admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). Emerson’s motion will 

be denied for this primary reason. 

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 847 Filed 05/09/18 Page 3 of 4
Case No.: 5:15-cv-01370-EJD

ORDER RE: EMERSON’S REQUEST TO “UN-ADMIT” CERTAIN EVIDENCE

4

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

II. SEVERAL OF THE EXHIBITS ARE ADMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 801(D)(2)(E)

Although unnecessary in light of the ruling described above, the court also makes a 

preliminary fact determination based on a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed 

between Facebook and Emerson as of April 25, 2012, for the reasons explained in Plaintiffs’ brief. 

Dkt. No. 819. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 847 Filed 05/09/18 Page 4 of 4