Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00371/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00371-4/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 06cv371 NLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALLEN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE GHOULISH GALLERY, an entity of

unknown form; TIM TURNER, an individual,

APRIL TURNER, an individual, and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants. 

TIM TURNER, an individual, APRIL

TURNER, an individual, dba THE

GHOULISH GALLERY,

Counterclaimants,

v.

EDWARD ALLEN, an individual,

Counterdefendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv371 NLS

ORDER:

(1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE

TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM

INTRODUCING AT TRIAL ANY

DOCUMENTS NOT PRODUCED

DURING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY

[Doc. No. 89];

(2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO

ADMIT EVIDENCE OF HIS

COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION FOR

THE HAUNTED MEMORIES

WEBSITE [Doc. No. 96];

(3) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE

PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING

TESTIMONY AT TRIAL FROM ANY

WITNESS NOT DISCLOSED DURING

PRETRIAL DISCOVERY [Doc. No. 93];

(4) GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION IN LIMINE TO INCLUDE

FORMER EASTMAN KODAK

EMPLOYEE ROY Y. TAYLOR AS A

WITNESS [Doc. No. 98]; and

(5) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TURNER’S

BRUISE FROM BEING PRESENTED

AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL [Doc. No. 97].

Case 3:06-cv-00371-NLS Document 109 Filed 09/26/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 Specifically, Defendants seek to exclude exhibit nos. 109-138, 141-142, 144, 147-150, 169,

204-209, 245, 252-271 and 273-274.

2

 See Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 2003 WL 23095763, *1 (9th Cir. 2004) (taking judicial notice

of copyright registration); Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d 1062, 1064 n.2

(9th Cir. 2006) (taking judicial notice of registered trademarks).

2 06cv371 NLS

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Certain Documents.

Defendants seek to preclude Plaintiff from introducing at trial any documents not produced

during pretrial discovery.1

 [Doc. No. 89.] Neither side, however, has described the documents sought to

be excluded, explained their relevance, asserted the specific harm that would result from their admission

or non-admission, or set forth any justification for the failure to timely produce the documents. Without

that information, the Court cannot rule on the admissibility of the documents at this time. Therefore, the

Court DENIES without prejudice Defendants’ motion to exclude these documents and reserves ruling

on the specific documents if and when they are sought to be introduced at trial. 

At trial, Plaintiff should be prepared to explain the relevance of the documents, any substantial

justification for why they were not timely produced and what harm would result to his case if they are

not admitted. Defendants should be prepared to assert any specific prejudice they would suffer if the

Court considers the admissibility of those documents.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Admit a Copy of his Copyright Registration.

Plaintiff seeks to admit evidence of his copyright registration for the Haunted Memories website. 

[Doc. No. 96.] The Court finds this motion to admit evidence premature because aside from

untimeliness, it has not considered any other potential objections to the document. 

Plaintiff filed a reply for his motion in which he asks the Court to take judicial notice of the

copyright registration. While judicial notice of a copyright registration may be appropriate,2 Plaintiff

did not make his request with proper notice to Defendants and the Court will not consider it at this time.

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to admit proof of his copyright

registration, and will determine whether and to what extent the certificate is admissible at the time of

trial. Plaintiff should be prepared at trial to provide substantial justification for not providing the

certificate earlier. Defendants should be prepared to inform the Court of how they will be prejudiced if

the document is admitted and be able to respond to Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice.

Case 3:06-cv-00371-NLS Document 109 Filed 09/26/07 Page 2 of 4
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 06cv371 NLS

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Witnesses and Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Roy Taylor to Testify.

Defendants seek to exclude testimony from nine witnesses–including Roy Taylor–because

Plaintiff never disclosed the identity of these witnesses to Defendants until July 2007. [Doc. No. 93.]

Plaintiff specifically seeks to include former Eastman Kodak employee Roy Taylor as a witness. [Doc.

No. 98.] 

Regarding all the late-disclosed witnesses except for Roy Taylor, Defendants will be prejudiced

if these witnesses are allowed to testify because Defendants have not had the opportunity to depose

these witnesses regarding their knowledge of the facts and issues of the case or prepare to cross-examine

them for trial. Plaintiff never provided any justification for failing to disclose the identity of these

witnesses earlier. Even though Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se, he was represented by counsel at the

time the disclosures were due.

Regarding Roy Taylor, Plaintiff offers Taylor’s testimony “to refute Defendant Tim Turner’s

claims of having Kodak produce lenticular changing portraits for him in 1990.” Pl.’s Mot. In Limine

p.2, ll.20-21. In other words, Plaintiff appears to offer Taylor’s testimony to impeach Turner’s

testimony that he had Kodak produce lenticular changing portraits for him in 1990. The Federal Rules

do not impose a duty to disclose the identity of impeachment witnesses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3). 

Therefore, the Court will allow Taylor to testify solely as an impeachment witness and not for any other

purpose. 

Because the Court will not permit Sabrina Rabbach, Justin McElwee, Tony Gardner, Naren

Desai, Officer Lance Kim, Graham Taylor-Letch, Kathryn Boddie-Lamb and Anthony Venuto to testify,

and will allow Roy Taylor to testify only as an impeachment witness, the Court GRANTS in part and

DENIES in part Defendants’ motion to exclude testimony, and GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion to

include Roy Taylor but solely as an impeachment witness.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-00371-NLS Document 109 Filed 09/26/07 Page 3 of 4
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 06cv371 NLS

Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the “Bruise Photograph.”

Evidence of the alleged bruise Turner sustained does not appear to be relevant to any claims in

the complaint nor to any of the crossclaims. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to

exclude evidence of the bruise. The Court also cautions the parties that if they seek to introduce

evidence regarding the alleged February 2006 altercation at the L.A.X. Hilton, the Court will apply the

same reasoning and analysis in determining whether to admit any evidence concerning the altercation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 26, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00371-NLS Document 109 Filed 09/26/07 Page 4 of 4