Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00218/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00218-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gerald K. Smith, as Trustee for and on

behalf of Boston Chicken, et. al, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arthur Andersen, et. al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 01-CV-0218-PHX-PGR

 01-CV-0246-PHX-PGR

 02-CV-1162-PHX-PGR

 02-CV-1248-PHX-PGR

 (Consolidated)

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court are the various parties' motions in limine which

were addressed at the Pretrial Conference on November 29 and 30, 2005. As the Court

indicated during the conference, a ruling denying a motion in limine does not necessarily

mean that certain evidence is admissible. Accordingly, a ruling by the Court granting a

motion in limine does not mean that such evidence is inadmissible. Evidence that may not

be admissible during one stage of trial may become admissible at another. Furthermore, the

Court's rulings on the following motions are without prejudice. For example, the Court finds

that many of the motions are premature and/ or overly broad. All of the Court's rulings are

subject to the limitation that they can be readdressed, if necessary, at the appropriate time

during trial. Therefore,

Case 2:01-cv-00218-PGR Document 1899 Filed 12/02/05 Page 1 of 12
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 -

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No.1 Regarding:

Plaintiff's Improper Assertion of Unpled Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against

Underwriters (Doc. 1620) is taken under advisement.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriters Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2 to

Preclude: Parol Evidence Relating to Ambiguous Allocation of Duties to Underwriters'

Purchase Agreements (Doc. 1622) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 3 to

Preclude: Reference to the Defendants as a Group or the Underwriters Using Pejorative

Terms (Doc. 1627) is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriters Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 4 to

Preclude: Evidence that 1) Investors Suffered Any Harm or that Plaintiff is Seeking Recovery

Based on Any Such Harm; or 2) That Any Money Recovered in this Litigation May Be

Distributed to Investors (Doc. 1628) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 5 to

Preclude: Evidence Relating to Settlement Agreements (Doc. 1629) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 6 to

Preclude: Evidence Relating to Amounts Offered or Paid in Connection with Securities Class

Action Settlements (Doc. 1630) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 7 to

Preclude: Evidence or Argument Regarding Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Qwest, Global

Crossing, Adelphia or Any Other Corporate Scandals (Doc. 1631) is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 8 to

Preclude: Written Expert Reports (Doc. 1632) is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 9 to

Preclude: Evidence or Argument Regarding Howell v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp.

(Doc. 1633) is DENIED.

Case 2:01-cv-00218-PGR Document 1899 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 12
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 -

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 10

Regarding: Precluding Plaintiff's Use of Sworn Statements as Hearsay Under Fed. R. Evid.

802 (Doc. 1634) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 11 to

Preclude: Parol Evidence Regarding Unambiguous Obligation in FAD Loan Agreements to

Repay FAD Loans (Doc. 1635) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 12 to

Preclude: Any Mention of Punitive Damages Until a Predicate Showing of Required

Elements and of Any Mention of Financial Worth of Defendants (Doc. 1636) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 13 to

Preclude: Use of Deposition Testimony During Opening Statements (Doc. 1638) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 14 to

Preclude: Plaintiff From Improperly Using Expert Witnesses as Fact Narrators (Doc. 1639)

is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 15 to

Preclude: Expert Testimony on Matters of Law and on State of Mind (Doc. 1640) is

DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 16 to

Preclude: Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) Before the

Court Has Ruled on its Predicate Foundation (Doc. 1641) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 17 to

Preclude: Evidence or Argument Before the Jury Regarding Prejudgment Interest (Doc.

1642) is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 18 to

Preclude: Evidence or Argument Regarding Litigation Against Paul Weiss Attorney Mark

Belnick Arising From His Employment at Tyco International, Ltd. (Doc. 1643) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Daubert Motion to Preclude the

Testimony of Cathy Krendl (Motion #1 - Doc. 1705) is DENIED.

Case 2:01-cv-00218-PGR Document 1899 Filed 12/02/05 Page 3 of 12
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

- 4 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Daubert Motion to Preclude the

Testimony of Richard Breeden (Motion #2 - Doc. 1660) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Daubert Motion to Preclude Dr. Allen

Michel's Expert Testimony on Damages (Motion #3 - Doc. 1703) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude

Argument or Evidence of Damages Based on the Securities Class Action (Motion #4 - Doc.

1653) is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff's

Experts from Testifying as to Legal Conclusions (Motion #5 - Doc. 1699) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss' Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff's

Experts From Opining on State of Mind or Intent (Motion #6 - Doc. 1692) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude the

Testimony of Richard Breeden (Motion #7 - Doc. 1646) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss' Motion in Limine to Exclude the

Testimony of Anthony D. Wedo Regarding BCI's Alleged Control of the FADs (Motion #8 -

Doc. 1655) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence

or Argument Seeking to Impose Liability Based on Communications with the SEC ( Motion

#9 - Doc. 1695) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence

Related to the "Howell Decision" (Motion #10 - Doc. 1684) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence

Related to Paul Weiss's Potential Conflict of Interest in Representing Boston Chicken and

Bank of America (Motion #11 - Doc. 1685) is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence

and Argument That This Is a Case on Behalf of Investors (Motion #12 - Doc. 1697) is

DENIED.

Case 2:01-cv-00218-PGR Document 1899 Filed 12/02/05 Page 4 of 12
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

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude

Argument or Evidence of Damages From "Looting" or "Waste" (Motion #13 - Doc. 1698)

is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence

That This is a Case on Behalf of Creditors (Motion #14 - Doc. 1689) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Declare that New

York Code of Professional Responsibility Governs the Conduct of Paul Weiss (Motion # 15 -

Doc. 1637) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence

of FAD Owner's State of Mind Concerning Their Undisclosed, Subjective Intent Not to

Repay Loans (Motion #16 - Doc. 1615) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude

Argument that Paul Weiss Knew the Implicit Rate (Motion #17 - Doc. 1702) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence

or Argument Regarding Speculation About the Independent Directors' Actions (Motion #18 -

Doc. 1624) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude

Evidence, Examination, or Argument Regarding Mark Belnick's Employment at TYCO 

( Motion #19 - Doc. 1657) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude

Arguments and Evidence Appealing to Regional Bias (Motion #20 - Doc. 1618) is

GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Bar Any

Descriptions of Plaintiff as Court-Appointed or Appointed by a Federal Judge (Motion #21 -

Doc. 1701) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence

and Argument Related to the Notes of Messrs. Marcus and Weissmann (Motion #22 - Doc.

1623) is DENIED.

Case 2:01-cv-00218-PGR Document 1899 Filed 12/02/05 Page 5 of 12
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

- 6 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Limit the Use of

Plaintiff's Ex Parte Sworn Statements (Motion #23 - Doc. 1682) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Use of

Defendants' Experts' Deposition Testimony in Plaintiff's Case-in-Chief (Motion #24 - Doc.

1649) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine Regarding the

Presentation of Exhibits and Transcripts of Testimony to the Jury (Motion #25 - Doc. 1711)

is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Bar Collective

References Such as "The Professional Defendants" and to Bar Plaintiff From Referring to

Paul Weiss in Disparaging or Pejorative Terms (Motion #26 - Doc. 1686) is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Bar Plaintiff From

Referring to Himself as "Trustee" (Motion #27 - Doc. 1700) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Preclude Evidence

Contradicting the Bankruptcy Court's Findings in Connection with Confirmation of BCI's

Plan, Including Any Evidence that the Sale of BCI's Assets to McDonald Corporation Was

Insufficient or that the Settlement with the Banks was Improper (Doc. 1667) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 to Preclude Defendants From

Claiming that Gerald K. Smith Took Action That Was Actually Taken By BCI, the Debtorin-Possession, Before Smith Was Appointed Trustee (Doc. 1668) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3 to Preclude Defendants from

Arguing that the Trustee is Controlled by, or is in any way a Proxy for, the Banks (Doc.

1669) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 4 to Preclude Use of Michael

J. Jenkins' Deposition Testimony at Trial (Doc. 1670) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 5 to Preclude the Defendants

From Asserting that the Trustee is Pursuing "Non-Company" Claims Belonging to Investors

or Creditors (1671) is DENIED.

Case 2:01-cv-00218-PGR Document 1899 Filed 12/02/05 Page 6 of 12
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

- 7 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 6 to Preclude Evidence

Regarding Gerald K. Smith and Lewis & Roca's ALAS Insurance Coverage (Doc. 1672) is

GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 7 to Preclude Defendants and

Their Experts from Testifying or Arguing that the Incurrence of Additional Debt by an

Insolvent Corporation Does Not Harm the Corporation (Doc. 1673) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 8 to Exclude the Testimony

of Daniel Fischel Regarding Deepening Insolvency (Doc. 1674) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 9 to Preclude Repetitive and

Cumulative SEC Standard of Care Testimony by Four Paul Weiss Expert Witnesses (Doc.

1675) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 10 Precluding Defendants

From Arguing or Suggesting the Existence of Statutory Defenses (Including "Reliance" and

"Due Diligence" Defenses) to the Trustee's Common Law Claims (Doc. 1676) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 11 to Preclude Testimony or

Argument that the Trustee's Claims are Preempted by Federal Law (Doc. 1677) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 12 to Preclude Improper

References to the Trustee's Settlements or to Other Settlements of Claims Against Parties to

this Litigation (1678) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 13 to Preclude Defendants

From Mentioning this Lawsuit's Consolidation with the BCI Class Action and Any Potential

Application of SLUSA (Doc. 1679) is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 14 to Preclude Evidence

Regarding the Trustee's Fee Arrangement with Counsel (Doc. 1680) is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 15 to Preclude Any Testimony

That the SEC or its Staff Approved or Signed Off on BCI's Disclosures (Doc. 1681) is

DENIED.

Case 2:01-cv-00218-PGR Document 1899 Filed 12/02/05 Page 7 of 12
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

- 8 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 16 to Preclude Argument or

Evidence Regarding Any Standard of Control Different Than Rule 405, Rule 12b-2 and Rule

1-02(g) (Doc. 1683) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 17 to Exclude Irrelevant

Evidence of Defendant Saad Nadhir's Alleged Charitable Contributions (Doc. 1687) is

GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 18 to Exclude Irrelevant

Evidence of Defendant Saad Nadhir's Claim That He Went Down With the Ship (Doc. 1688)

is DENIED as moot.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 19 to Preclude Evidence of

Negligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in Andersen's Designation of Non-Parties

at Fault, and, Motion to Strike Andersen's Designation of Non-Parties at Fault Filed on

6/18/02 (Doc. 1709) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 20 to Preclude Evidence of

Negligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in the Underwriter Defendants' Designation

of Non-Parties At Fault Filed 6/18/02, and, Motion to Strike Underwriters' Designation of

Non Parties at Fault (1719) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 21 to Preclude Evidence of

Negligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in the Individual Defendants' (Nadhir's)

Designation of Non-Parties At Fault Filed 6/18/02, and, Motion to Strike Nadhir's

Designation of Non Parties at Fault (1710) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 22 to Preclude Evidence of

Negligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in Paul Weiss' Designation of Non-Parties

At Fault Filed 12/23/02, and, Motion to Strike Paul Weiss' Designation of Non Parties at

Fault Filed 12/23/02 (1722) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 23 to Preclude Evidence

of Negligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in PricewaterhouseCoopers' Designation

Case 2:01-cv-00218-PGR Document 1899 Filed 12/02/05 Page 8 of 12
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

- 9 -

of Non-Parties at Fault Filed on 12/23/02 and Motion to Strike PricewaterhouseCoopers'

Designation on 12/24/02 (Doc. 1723) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 24 to Preclude Evidence

of Negligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in PricewaterhouseCoopers'

Supplemental Designation of Non-Parties at Fault Filed on 11/12/03 and Motion to Strike

PricewaterhouseCoopers' Supplemental Designation of 11/12/03 (Doc. 1715) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 25 to Preclude Evidence of

Negligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in Paul Weiss' Second Designation of NonParties At Fault Filed 04/26/04, and, Motion to Strike Paul Weiss' Designation of Non Parties

at Fault Filed 04/26/04 (1712) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 26 to Preclude Evidence of

Negligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in the Underwriter Defendants' Second

Designation of Non-Parties At Fault Filed on 06/18/04 and, Motion to Strike the Underwriter

Defendants' Designation of Non Parties at Fault Filed 06/18/04 (1720) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 27 to Preclude Evidence of

Negligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in Defendant Nadhir's Fourth Supplemental

Designation of Non-Parties At Fault Filed 11/23/04, and, Motion to Strike Defendant

Nadhir's Fourth Supplemental Designation of Non-Parties at Fault ( Doc. 1724) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 28 to Preclude Evidence of

Negligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in Andersen's Second Supplemental

Designation of Non-Parties At Fault Filed on 12/29/04, and, Motion to Strike Andersen's

Second Supplemental Designation of Non Parties at Fault Filed on 12/29/04 (1716) is

DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 29 to Preclude Evidence of

Negligence or Fault of Non-Parties Identified in Bell Boyd Lloyd's Designation of NonParties at Fault filed on 6/18/02, and, Motion to Strike Bell Boyd Lloyd's Supplemental

Designation of Non-Parties at Fault Filed on 6/18/02 (Doc. 1721) is DENIED.

Case 2:01-cv-00218-PGR Document 1899 Filed 12/02/05 Page 9 of 12
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

- 10 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 30 to Preclude Evidence of

Negligence or Fault of Non-Parties Identified in Peer Pedersen's Amended Contingent

Designation Filed on July 10, 2003, and, Motion to Strike Peer Pedersen's Designation of

Non-Parties at Fault Filed on July 10, 2003 (Doc. 1713) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 31 to Preclude Evidence of

Negligence or Fault of Non-Parties Identified in Designations Which Have Already Been

Stricken by Court Order (Doc. 1717) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 32 to Compel Live Testimony

of Defendants' Witnesses in Plaintiff's Case; or, to Preclude Live Testimony of Defendants'

Witnesses in Defendants' Case (Doc. 1718) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 33 to Preclude Witnesses for

Underwriter Defendants Regarding Subjects of Documents Wrongfully Withheld from the

Trustee; Alternatively, to Allow Trustee to Conduct Additional Depositions (Doc. 1690)

remains unresolved pending an attempt by counsel to resolve the matters raised in it.

Accordingly, the Court defers its ruling.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 34 To Preclude Certain

Testimony of Saad Nadhir's Expert Peter Opperman Regarding Executive Compensation

Issues About Which He Said He Had No Opinions At His Deposition (Doc. 1691) is

DENIED as moot.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 35 to Preclude Certain

Testimony by Paul Weiss Expert Daniel Fischel Concerning Issues About Which He Had No

Opinions At His Deposition (Doc. 1693) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 36 Precluding Testimony of

Underwriter's Expert Paul Albert Regarding Certain Due Diligence Issues About Which He

Had No Opinions At His Deposition (Doc. 1694) is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 37 Precluding Testimony of

Underwriting Expert Jonathon Macey Regarding the Outside Directors' Role in the BCI

Initial Public Offering (Doc. 1696) is DENIED.

Case 2:01-cv-00218-PGR Document 1899 Filed 12/02/05 Page 10 of 12
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

- 11 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion Regarding Proposed Agenda for the

Pretrial Conference Scheduled to Begin on November 29, 2005 (Doc. 1889) is DENIED as

moot.

IT IS ORDERED that Arthur Andersen's Motion for Joinder in Paul Weiss Motion

Dated November 4, 2005 (Doc. 1886) is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that Arthur Andersen's Motion for Joinder in Underwriter

Defendants' Motion to Determine the Issue of Damages at the November 29, 2005 Pretrial

Conference (Doc. 1879) is GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion to Determine the Issue of

the Measure of Damages (Doc. 1878) is taken under advisement.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion of Defendants Paul Weiss and Arthur Andersen to

Include the Issue of Standing on the Agenda for the Pretrial Conference Scheduled to Begin

on November 29, 2005, and to Enter Judgment Under Rule 16 Because of the Lack of

Evidence to Support Standing Under the Only Theory of Standing Accepted by the Ninth

Circuit (Doc. 1870) is DENIED. The Court concludes that pursuant to the recent Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, the Plaintiff has standing to pursue damages in this

matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled to be held

before the Court on Monday, January 9, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 601.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining parties' Amended Joint Pretrial

Statement is due on or before Wednesday, December 21, 2005.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff's jury instructions specifically

addressing the measure of damages is due to the Court on or before Wednesday, December

21, 2005.

Case 2:01-cv-00218-PGR Document 1899 Filed 12/02/05 Page 11 of 12
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

- 12 -

DATED this 1st day of December, 2005.

Case 2:01-cv-00218-PGR Document 1899 Filed 12/02/05 Page 12 of 12