Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02028/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02028-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

1 02cv2028

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MASTERSON MARKETING, INC., Civil No. 02cv2028-L (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING ON

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

v. AND SETTING PRE-TRIAL DATES

KSL RECREATION CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

And related cross-actions.

On December 13, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the following motions in limine:

(1) Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence of allegedly unreturned images or damages

purportedly arising therefrom; (2) Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence or argument

regarding images of Squaw Peak not created by Ed Masterson; and (3) Defendants’ Daubert motion in

limine to exclude the expert report and testimony of Jeff Sedlik. Bruce E. Van Dalsem appeared on

behalf of Defendants. Grant Teeple and Eric Hart appeared for plaintiff. After considering the

arguments of counsel and the papers submitted by the parties, and for GOOD CAUSE APPEARING

THEREFOR, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence of allegedly unreturned images or damages

purportedly arising therefrom is GRANTED;

Case 3:02-cv-02028-CAB Document 283 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 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

2 02cv2028

2) Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence or argument regarding images of Squaw

Peak not created by Ed Masterson is DENIED with regard to any such images that were NOT the

subject of the partial summary judgment motion granted by the Honorable M. James Lorenz on April 13,

2007 and reported at 495 F.Supp.2d 1044;

3) Defendants’ Daubert motion in limine to exclude the expert report and testimony of Jeff

Sedlik is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. 

The motion is GRANTED in that Mr. Sedlik will NOT be allowed to testify with regard to the

following:

a) allegedly unreturned images or damages purportedly arising therefrom;

b) whether or not images of Squaw Peak not created by Ed Masterson infringe. Mr. Sedlik was

designated to testify with regard to “practices and standards within the commercial photography

industry, as well as valuation of images and image licenses, applicable actual damages, and the

identification of a causal nexus supporting an award of disgorged profits.” Preliminary Expert Report

and Disclosure of Jeff Sedlik dated September 22, 2006 (the “Report”) at 2. Therefore, Mr. Sedlik may

not testify as to whether such images (of Squaw Peak not created by Ed Masterson) infringe. If the

court finds such images to infringe, then Mr. Sedlik may testify as to any related damages as set forth

above.

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all other opinions Defendants sought

to exclude. Specifically, the Court is not excluding, at this time, Mr. Sedlik’s report and testimony with

regard to the “scarcity multiplier” initially identified in the Report at page 15. Defendants may, however,

renew their motion to exclude specific opinions at the appropriate time after the voir dire examination of

Mr. Sedlik.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

4) Despite the requirements of Civil Local Rule 16.1(f), neither party is required to file

Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law at any time. The parties shall instead focus their efforts on

drafting and submitting a proposed pretrial order by the time and date specified by Local Rule 16.1(f)(6).

5) All parties or their counsel shall also fully comply with the Pretrial Disclosure

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), including deposition designations, on or before January 11,

Case 3:02-cv-02028-CAB Document 283 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 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

3 02cv2028

2008. Failure to comply with these disclosures requirements could result in evidence preclusion or

other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

6) Counsel shall meet together and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4),

including submittal of rebuttal deposition designations, on or before January 18, 2008. At this

meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into stipulations and agreements resulting in

simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than

those to be used for impeachment. The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule

16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel shall note any objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial Disclosures

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), including objections to deposition designations. Counsel shall

cooperate in the preparation of the proposed pretrial conference order.

7) The proposed final pretrial conference order, including objections they have to any other

parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures, shall be prepared, served and lodged with the Clerk

of the Court on or before January 21, 2008, and shall be in the form prescribed in and in compliance

with Local Rule 16.1 (f)(6). Counsel shall also bring a court copy of the pretrial order to the pretrial

conference.

8) Counsel shall contact the chambers of the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo on or before

January 21, 2008, and provide her law clerk (Anastasia Thomas) with a list of any audio/visual

equipment that will be used during the trial.

9) The final pretrial conference shall be held before the Honorable Cathy Ann

Bencivengo, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 28, 2008, at 2:00 p.m.

10) Trial will commence on February 4, 2008, at 9 a.m. in Department E.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-02028-CAB Document 283 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 3