Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02744/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02744-21/pdf.json

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

---

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

CLEAR-VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN H. RASNICK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02744-BLF 

ORDER RE PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE

[Re: ECF 181, 182]

This Order addresses the motions in limine submitted by both sides in the above-captioned 

action. For the reasons explained below, the motions are decided as follows: 

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #1: Granted in part and denied in part. 

Defendants’ Motion in Limine #1: Denied. 

Defendants’ Motion in Limine #2: Denied.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine #3: Granted. 

Defendants’ Motion in Limine #4: Denied. 

Defendants’ Motion in Limine #5: Granted. 

Defendants’ Motion in Limine #6: Granted in part and denied in part.

I. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Allegations of Embezzlement and Drug 

Use By Paul S. Mula, II

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

Plaintiff Clear-View Technologies’ (“CVT”) motion in limine seeks to exclude allegations 

of embezzlement and drug use by Paul Mula, II, CVT’s co-founder and former CEO. Plaintiff 

argues that Defendants lack personal knowledge sufficient to justify their allegations, have failed 

to disclose in response to CVT’s interrogatories any facts underlying their allegations, that the 

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 214 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 8
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

testimony of two third-party witnesses regarding these allegations (Messrs. Dong and Zevgolis), 

would be inadmissible hearsay, and that the probative value of such evidence would be 

substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS 

the motion as to allegations of drug use and embezzlement, but DENIES the motion as to more 

general allegations of Mr. Mula’s misappropriation of funds and financial mismanagement. 

As to allegations of drug use, the only evidence pointed to by Defendants is a series of text 

messages between Mr. Mula and Defendant Mattingly which purport to have been sent by Mr. 

Mula while consuming alcohol at a bar at 7 p.m. in the evening. See Crosby Decl., ECF 193-2 

Exh. A at 1-3. Defendants further assert that Messrs. Dong and Zevgolis may appear to testify 

regarding Mr. Mula’s use of alleged illegal drugs. See Opp., ECF 193 at 2. When asked at the May 

28, 2015 pretrial conference whether Defendants had any admissible evidence regarding such drug 

use, however, defense counsel responded “I don’t know.” Defendants assert that this evidence 

would be “undeniably relevant and probative,” Opp., ECF 193 at 3, but the Court finds that any 

modest probative value provided by this evidence is clearly outweighed by its prejudicial effects

upon Plaintiff, rendering it inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Given that the only 

evidence Defendant has offered regarding “drug use” is a series of text messages in which Mr. 

Mula states he was consuming alcohol one evening, the Court GRANTS the motion as to 

allegations of drug use.

As to allegations of embezzlement, Plaintiff claims any evidence of this allegation would 

be inadmissible hearsay and was not properly disclosed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 26 and 37. The Court finds, however, that Plaintiff’s depositions of Defendants, 

specifically the deposition of Basil Mattingly, sufficed to put Plaintiff on notice of the allegations 

of both drug use and embezzlement against Mr. Mula. See id. at 2 (citing Tilley Decl. Exhs. A, C). 

Despite this sufficient notice, Defendants have not pointed to any admissible evidence regarding 

Mr. Mula’s alleged embezzlement, nor did they indicate at the pretrial conference that they would 

be able to put forth any such evidence at trial. The Court GRANTS the motion as to allegations of 

embezzlement because there is no admissible evidence. The Court, however, agrees with 

Defendants that testimony as to allegations of Mr. Mula’s financial mismanagement of CVT is 

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 214 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 8
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

relevant, and DENIES the motion as to those more general allegations of misappropriation of 

funds and financial mismanagement so long as Defendants submit admissible evidence on the 

topic. 

The Court DEFERS any hearsay objections until trial. The Court’s denial of this motion in 

limine is without prejudice to Defendants making an offer of proof to the Court, outside the 

presence of the jury, of admissible evidence that would support their allegations of drug use or 

embezzlement. 

II. Defendants’ Motions in Limine

Defendants bring six motions in limine, which the Court addresses in turn. 

1. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude the Testimony of Gerald North

DENIED.

Defendants move to exclude Gerald North from testifying in this action. Mr. North 

previously served on CVT’s Board of Directors and is also acting as CVT’s trial counsel in this 

action. MIL #1, ECF 182 at 1. Defendants state that Mr. North was not included in Plaintiff’s Rule 

26 disclosures and argue that the Court would “necessarily have to discount the credibility of his 

testimony” were he called at trial. Id. at 2. Plaintiff states that neither party intends to call Mr. 

North to testify, and that if Mr. North were to testify as a rebuttal witness, CVT would provide 

written consent consistent with Rule of Professional Conduct 5-210(C), which permits an advocate 

to testify on behalf of its client when he has “the informed, written consent of the client.” Id.

The Court therefore DENIES the motion provided that, in the event Mr. North is called as 

a rebuttal witness, CVT provides written consent permitting him to do so. 

2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Evidence of Spoliation

DENIED.

Defendants move to exclude all evidence, references to evidence, testimony, or argument 

regarding the spoliation of evidence by Defendants and allegations of spoliation by Mr. Berg. 

On May 13, 2015, Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal issued a sanctions order against 

Defendants finding that they spoliated evidence in this action. Judge Grewal ordered an adverse 

inference instruction be given regarding Defendants’ spoliation. See ECF 196. The Court has read 

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 214 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 8
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

and considered Judge Grewal’s detailed and well-reasoned order and agrees with his findings. The 

Court is prepared to give the adverse inference jury instruction against Defendants as drafted by 

Judge Grewal. The motion is therefore DENIED as to Defendants. 

This sanction, however, did not reference Mr. Berg, and Defendants contend that CVT 

should be precluded from introducing evidence regarding allegations of Mr. Berg’s spoliation of 

evidence absent such an adverse inference sanction. Plaintiff argues that it should be able to advise 

the jury that Mr. Berg, an alleged co-conspirator of Defendants, admitted under oath that he 

spoliated evidence in this action and that the Court could, if necessary, provide the jury with a 

limiting instruction regarding the evidence. 

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that evidence regarding Mr. Berg’s purported spoliation is 

admissible under Rule 401 because it is relevant to the dispute at the heart of this case, which 

concerns allegations regarding whether Defendants induced Mr. Berg to cancel a planned 

investment in CVT. Evidence that Mr. Berg destroyed evidence regarding his conduct is 

undoubtedly probative of Mr. Berg’s consciousness of guilt regarding the alleged conspiracy. The 

probative value of this evidence is not outweighed by any possible prejudice facing Defendants 

were it introduced, thus rendering the evidence admissible under Rule 403’s balancing test. The 

motion is therefore also DENIED as to Mr. Berg. 

The Court has not been asked to consider an adverse inference instruction against Mr. 

Berg, who is not a party to the litigation, and is unlikely to do so. 

3. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence re the Stroz 

Friedberg Fee Dispute

GRANTED.

Defendants move to exclude evidence, reference to evidence, testimony, or argument 

relating to its fee dispute with non-party Stroz Friedberg, a forensic analysis firm appointed by the 

Court to engage in a review of Defendants electronic media after Plaintiff alleged that Defendants 

spoliated evidence. Following Stroz Friedberg’s investigation, Defendants disputed Stroz 

Friedberg’s fees. Stroz Friedberg then unsuccessfully moved to intervene in this action. See ECF 

187. Defendants indicated on May 20, 2015 that the fee dispute has been resolved and that Stroz 

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 214 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 8
5

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

Friedberg has been paid in full. See ECF 199. 

Defendants argue that the fee dispute is irrelevant to this action and any reference to it 

would be unduly prejudicial. Plaintiff argues in response that Defendants should not be able to 

suppress reference to “their ongoing violation of contractual and court-ordered obligations,” Opp. 

to MIL #3, ECF 195-2 at 1, and that the evidence’s relevance outweighs any possible prejudice. 

The Court agrees with Defendants. Defendants have paid the amount due to Stroz 

Friedberg, and any reference to the fee dispute would be confusing to the jury and an undue 

consumption of time. The adverse inference against Defendants regarding spoliation is sufficient; 

Plaintiff need not also muddy the waters at trial by referencing a now-resolved fee dispute 

between Defendants and a third party. 

4. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Untimely Produced Video 

Recordings 

DENIED.

Defendants move to exclude evidence, reference to evidence, testimony, or argument 

relating to three video recordings that Plaintiff may seek to offer at trial. Two of these recordings 

show small-scale replicas of CVT’s product The BarMaster, while the other recording includes 

video reviews of The BarMaster by the owner of an establishment (202 Market) in which it was 

installed, as well as positive statements about The BarMaster made by a former CVT employee

and possible defense witness, Hugh Simpson. Defendants make a number of arguments as to why 

this evidence should be excluded, including that it was untimely produced, lacks authentication 

and foundation, that Plaintiff cannot prove a chain of custody, and that the probative value of the 

evidence is outweighed by its likely prejudicial effect. In response, Plaintiff states that the two 

small-scale replica videos were publicly available, having been posted to CVT’s Youtube.com 

channel, and that Plaintiff’s counsel provided Defendants with the 202 Market video the day after 

it was given to Plaintiff’s counsel by Mr. Zevgolis, another former CVT employee who is a 

possible defense witness in this action. 

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. The two Youtube.com videos were publicly available to 

Defendants, and the 202 Market video was promptly provided to Defendants upon its receipt by 

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 214 Filed 05/29/15 Page 5 of 8
6

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

Plaintiff’s counsel. There is no evidence that Plaintiff prevented Defendant from taking discovery 

as to these videos. Further, these videos have clear probative value because they purport to show 

that The BarMaster could be successfully installed in an establishment. Defendants cannot 

reasonably point to any actual undue prejudice that would result from the introduction of these 

videos at trial. 

Because it is unclear whether these videos are admissible, questions of foundation, 

authentication, and chain of custody are DEFERRED until trial, but Defendants’ request to 

exclude the videos under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Federal Rules of Evidence 401 

and 403 is DENIED. 

5. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Evidence of Twelve Additional 

The BarMaster Orders

GRANTED.

Defendants move to exclude evidence, reference to evidence, testimony, or argument 

regarding twelve purported additional orders of The BarMaster product. Defendants argue that 

CVT testified in its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition that only one sale of The BarMaster had been made, 

to the 202 Market establishment, and that Plaintiff did not produce during discovery any evidence 

that would support its claim that it received twelve additional orders that it was unable to satisfy

due to Defendants’ actions. Defendants further argue that the evidence lacks foundation and would 

be unduly prejudicial under Rule 403. In response, Plaintiff contends that Defendants asked only 

about sales, not orders, in their 30(b)(6) deposition, and cannot “lock in” an answer to a question 

that was never asked. Plaintiff further argues that Defendants had ample opportunity to take 

discovery as to any additional purported sale orders of The BarMaster product, but failed to do so.

See Opp. to MIL #4, ECF 195-4 at 2. 

At the hearing on this motion in limine at the parties’ pretrial conference, Plaintiff’s 

counsel was unable to point to any document in the record that would support its contention that 

CVT received twelve additional orders of The BarMaster. Plaintiff indicated instead that it might 

call witnesses, including Plaintiff’s Director of Sales or CEO, who would provide admissible

testimony that these orders were placed. 

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 214 Filed 05/29/15 Page 6 of 8
7

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

Because Plaintiff is unable to point to any document it has disclosed pursuant to Rule 26, 

which requires Plaintiff to disclose all documents to Defendant on which it will rely in order to 

support its claims or defenses, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion pursuant to Rule 37(c). 

Plaintiff will not be able to introduce at trial any evidence of the purported twelve other orders of 

The BarMaster unless and until it shows that the evidence supporting those orders was properly 

disclosed pursuant to Rule 26’s requirements. 

6. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6 to Limit the Testimony of Dr. Jonathan 

Neuberger to the Opinions and Bases Set Forth in his Expert Report

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Defendant moves to limit Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Jonathan Neuberger, to testify only to the 

opinions and bases set forth in his expert report. MIL #6, ECF 182-5 at 1.1 Defendants therefore 

seek to exclude testimony on new matters set forth in a supplemental declaration by Dr. 

Neuberger, filed in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to exclude, which Defendants 

contend “improperly expands the Neuberger [Expert] Report.” Id. at 2. Defendants argue that a 

party may supplement an expert report only to correct inaccuracies or add information unavailable 

at the time the report was written, and that the Neuberger Supplemental Declaration is instead an 

improper attempt to strengthen the Neuberger Report by adding information that should have 

originally been included in the Report. At oral argument on the motion at the parties’ pretrial 

conference, Defendants specifically argued that the Court should exclude Dr. Neuberger’s 

references to the purported twelve additional orders of The BarMaster as well as any reference to 

an independent valuation of CVT conducted by the Cronkite & Kissel valuation firm which 

Defendants claim went wholly unreferenced in Dr. Neuberger’s Expert Report. Plaintiff responds 

that the Supplemental Declaration “simply explains why Defendants’ criticisms [of the Report] are 

without merit,” and that a supplemental declaration may be used to respond to and correct alleged 

mischaracterizations of an expert report. See Opp. to MIL #6, ECF 195-5 at 1-2.

The Court agrees with Defendants, but only to a degree. Much of the Neuberger 

 

1 Defendants separately move to exclude Dr. Neuberger from testifying as an expert under 

Daubert. The Court will issue a separate written order discussing this motion to exclude. 

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 214 Filed 05/29/15 Page 7 of 8
8

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

Supplemental Declaration provides illumination of his expert opinions or corrects inaccuracies, 

both of which fall within the permissible bounds of a supplemental declaration. See, e.g., In re 

REMEC Incorporated Securities Litig., 702 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1218 n.10 (S.D. Cal. 2010). 

The Court DENIES the motion as to Dr. Neuberger’s reliance on the Cronkite & Kissel 

report because Plaintiff’s counsel indicated at the hearing that Plaintiff disclosed Dr. Neuberger’s 

reliance on that report in its disclosures to Defendants. The Cronkite & Kissel report was drafted 

by an independent valuation firm, was not drafted for the purpose of litigation, and predates the 

dispute at issue in this case, making it appropriate for Dr. Neuberger to have relied on the report 

when rendering his own valuation of CVT. Dr. Neuberger’s explication in his supplemental 

declaration regarding his reliance on the Cronkite & Kissel report is therefore an appropriate

supplementation of his Expert Report. See, e.g., REMEC, 702 F. Supp. 2d at 1218. The Court, 

however, GRANTS the motion as to Dr. Neuberger’s reliance on the purported twelve additional 

orders of The BarMaster due to the absence of any reference in the Neuberger Report to these 

twelve purported orders, as well as Plaintiff’s inability to point to any evidentiary basis for those 

orders that was provided to Defendants in discovery pursuant to Plaintiff’s Rule 26 obligations. 

Thus, the Court GRANTS the motion regarding references to the twelve additional orders

of The BarMaster and DENIES the remainder of Defendants’ motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 214 Filed 05/29/15 Page 8 of 8