Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00859/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00859-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

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

*E-filed 3/17/08*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARK HOUSTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTRY COACH, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-00859 HRL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

AND ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Re: Docket Nos. 21, 24, 25, and 38

On March 14, 2008, the parties appeared for a pretrial conference to discuss various

pretrial matters and to argue their motions in limine. Based on the papers submitted, the

arguments of counsel, and the discussion held at the conference, the court orders as follows:

I. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

The following schedule shall apply to the remainder of this case: 

Motions in Limine re: challenged exhibits due . . . . . . . . . . . March 21, 2008

Opposition to Motions in Limine due . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March 28, 2008

Pretrial Submissions due . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 14, 2008

Reply (if any) to Pretrial Submissions due . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 17, 2008

Bench Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 21, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 5:07-cv-00859-HRL Document 46 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Miscellaneous Considerations: 

Each party will be limited to a total of seven hours to present their case. Both parties

should prepare an exhibit binder for use by testifying witnesses. Finally, a meet and confer

session should be held promptly in order to memorialize any stipulations concerning witness

testimony, exhibit foundations, and the like. Provide the court with copies of any such

agreements by April 14, 2008. 

Pretrial Submissions: 

On April 14, Plaintiff shall provide both the court and Defendant with an itemized list of

damages and with a document setting forth (in an organized fashion) the chronological history

of repair attempts on the vehicle. Plaintiff shall also brief the court on the applicable burdens of

proof, the differences or similarities in the two relevant warranty statutes, and any differences in

available remedies. 

II. ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

A. Plaintiff's Motions in Limine

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 to preclude any expert opinion testimony by Kevin

Kiscoan is DENIED. Houston argues that Country Coach's expert witness should be precluded

from testifying because he did not appear for a noticed deposition. However, Kiscoan was

unavailable only on the date chosen by Plaintiff and alternate dates for the deposition were

proposed by Defendant. A preclusion sanction is not warranted under the circumstances. 

Plaintiff's alternative request to preclude Kiscoan from rendering any opinions not specifically

stated in his expert report is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Without knowing what

testimony Country Coach will actually try to elicit from its expert, the court would be deciding

this motion in a vacuum. 

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 to preclude expert opinion testimony by any

employees of Country Coach, Inc. that were not designated as experts and did not provide

reports is GRANTED. Defendant acknowledges that expert opinion testimony from Country

Case 5:07-cv-00859-HRL Document 46 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Coach employees other than Kiscoan would be improper under FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)(2) since

they were not disclosed to Plaintiff as potential expert witnesses. To be clear, this ruling does

not preclude percipient witness testimony from Country Coach employees. 

B. Defendant’s Motions in Limine

Motion in Limine Nos. 1 and 2 argue that any matters involving the coach or chassis

which arise after the expiration of those warranties are irrelevant, immaterial, and not

admissible at trial. FRE 401 - 403. But, the state statute relied upon by Plaintiff incorporates a

tolling provision which involves fact-intensive determinations before it can be applied. See Cal.

Civ. Code. § 1795.6 (indicating that if a vehicle is in a repair shop for three weeks, then the

relevant time frame on a 12-month warranty would be twelve months plus three weeks). 

Therefore, Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude any matters (e.g., any evidence of

alleged repair concerns or issues) involving the coach which arise after the expiration of the 12-

month coach warranty period is DENIED. However, Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2,

which seeks to exclude any matters involving the coach's chassis arising after the expiration of

the 5-year chassis warranty, is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3 to exclude any matters involving anything other

than the motor home's "coach" or "chassis" is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. Plaintiff

confirmed at the hearing that he was not pursuing any claims for damage to the vehicle not

covered by those warranties. 

Motion in Limine No. 4, which seeks to exclude evidence of any alleged repair concerns

or issues, for any issues subject to less than two repair attempts during the applicable warranty

period, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant argues that the relevant law (the

Magnusson-Moss Consumer Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. and the Song-Beverly

Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. C.C. § 1790, et seq.) requires more than one repair attempt for

any given repair concern. See Silvio v. Ford Motor Company, 109 Cal. App. 4th 1205 (2003).

Although Defendant's argument may ultimately prevail, deciding the motion at this time -

without any facts to put the argument into context - would be premature. 

Case 5:07-cv-00859-HRL Document 46 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Motion in Limine No. 5 to exclude evidence of any unilateral inspections or testing

performed on the motor home after October 16, 2007 (the expert discovery cutoff) and not

properly disclosed in the expert's original report is GRANTED. Plaintiff submitted a

supplemental report which included testing performed on the vehicle long after the close of

expert discovery. Such information is precluded by FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)(2)(B) and would be

prejudicial to Defendant if permitted at this stage.

Motions in Limine 6, 7 and 8 each deal with Defendant's efforts to preclude expert

opinion testimony from witnesses not timely disclosed as experts. Recently, Plaintiff turned

over documents indicating that three previously-undisclosed individuals would be offering

expert opinion testimony. At the hearing, Plaintiff agreed that such testimony is precluded by

FED.R.CIV.P. 26 and the case management order. Thus, the following Motions in Limine are

GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED: No. 6 seeking to exclude expert opinions from Jody Eaton of

Performance Color RV; No. 7 seeking to exclude expert opinions from James Drulias of

Material Damage Appraisal; and No. 8 seeking to exclude expert opinions from Tom Parker. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/17/08 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-00859-HRL Document 46 Filed 03/17/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO: 

Terry L. Baker tbaker@consumerlawgroup.net 

Kevin J. Tully kevin@tullylaw.net, jeanine@tullylaw.net, julie@tullylaw.net 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing.

Date: 3/17/08 KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:07-cv-00859-HRL Document 46 Filed 03/17/08 Page 5 of 5