Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02848/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02848-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUBLEVISION ENTERTAINMENT,

LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY

INSURANCE CO., et al,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-02848 WHA

ORDER RE “SHAM” COMMENT

With respect to the comment of the state court judge that the interpleader was a “sham,”

which was heard by the corporate representative of Doublevision, Doug Dawson, no comment

about it shall be made in the presence of the jury until after further hearing and order. The Court

will hear Mr. Dawson out of the presence of the jury to understand the context. Additionally, the

Court wishes to know whether Navigators or anyone else heard the comment. 

Finally, please brief the law on the extent to which judicial utterances must be made on

the record to count. Put differently, a judicial ruling that the interpleader was a sham would

ordinarily be in writing or on the record. If it wasn’t on the record, then presumably it was not a

ruling. If it was not a ruling, it should probably be excluded under Rule 403.

The above points are separate from the hearsay issue addressed Monday, which the

parties may also brief. Briefs on these issues shall be submitted by JULY 14, AT 5:00 P.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-02848-WHA Document 220 Filed 07/13/15 Page 1 of 1