Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04233/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04233-40/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REOPEN FOR LIMITED PURPOSE 

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 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SHANNON CAMPBELL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and 

MICHAEL STUART, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK

13-CV-00233-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO REOPEN FOR 

LIMITED PURPOSE 

MARK ENNIS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and 

MICHAEL STUART, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, 

the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen (ECF No. 345) for the limited purpose of 

allowing Plaintiffs to admit one item into evidence: the declaration of Keith Senglaub concerning 

Feld Entertainment, Inc’s net worth (ECF No. 247-1). The Court recognizes that Plaintiffs’ motion 

in limine no. 2 sought to exclude the Senglaub declaration as untimely disclosed, ECF No. 246; 

that Plaintiffs further objected to the Senglaub declaration’s admission at the January 22, 2015 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 353 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REOPEN FOR LIMITED PURPOSE 

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 

For the Northern District of California 

pretrial conference (“PTC”) on hearsay and foundational grounds, ECF No. 315 at 77:8-14; and 

that the Senglaub declaration has never appeared on any of the six exhibit lists Plaintiffs have filed 

in this case, see ECF Nos. 252, 253, 258, 270, 309, 325. The Court understands Defendants’ 

frustration with Plaintiffs’ repeated failure to comply with deadlines and obligations throughout 

this case. 

Nonetheless, the Court, exercising its sound discretion, will allow Plaintiffs to reopen their 

case for the limited purpose of admitting the Senglaub declaration. See Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 

467, 478 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining that “reopening is within the discretion of the trial court” and 

“that the evidence requested should both be important as a matter preventing injustice and 

reasonably be available”). Were the Court to deny Plaintiffs’ motion, Plaintiffs would be 

precluded from arguing punitive damages to the jury. See Adams v. Murakami, 813 P.2d 1348 

(Cal. 1991) (holding that “an award of punitive damages cannot be sustained on appeal unless the 

trial record contains meaningful evidence of the defendant’s financial condition”). That is too 

drastic a result given that the Senglaub declaration is Defendants’ own document and was on 

Defendants’ original exhibit list as DX 311. See ECF No. 244-1 at 30. Although the Senglaub 

declaration is not included in Defendants’ operative exhibit list, see ECF No. 319; see also ECF 

No. 305, Defendants were aware since at least the PTC that the Senglaub declaration could be 

admitted at trial. Weighing the equities, the Court concludes that allowing Plaintiffs the 

opportunity to introduce a single, one-page document into evidence is warranted. 

The Court, however, will not interrupt Defendants’ case-in-chief to allow Plaintiffs to admit 

the Senglaub declaration. To avoid confusing the jury, Plaintiffs will not be allowed to introduce 

the declaration until Defendants rest. After Plaintiffs introduce the declaration in their rebuttal 

case, Defendants will then have the opportunity in their rebuttal case to respond to the document. 

Defendants may also introduce the Senglaub declaration in their case-in-chief, should they so 

choose. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 19, 2015 _______________________________ 

 LUCY H. KOH 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 353 Filed 02/19/15 Page 2 of 2