Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01510/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01510-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROYAL YATES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

GUNNALLEN FINANCIAL and CURT

WILLIAMS,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-1510 BZ

RULINGS ON OBJECTIONS AND

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

The court having reviewed the papers and considered the

arguments of counsel and for the reasons discussed during the

conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s objection to the proposed jury

instructions is OVERRULED. 

2. Defendant’s objections to the proposed jury

instructions are OVERRULED. A final set of jury

instructions will be distributed to the parties on

the morning of trial. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude Mr. Kraus’

testimony is DENIED. See Swinton v. Potomac Corp.,

270 F.3d 794, 814 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Case 3:05-cv-01510-BZ Document 152 Filed 11/06/06 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

4. Plaintiff’s motion in limine to restrict Mr. Nummi’s

testimony is DENIED. Consistent with the guidelines

given during the conference, issues such as whether

Mr. Nummi’s testimony improperly encompasses expert

opinion, or whether Mr. Nummi improperly seeks to

testify concerning documents not previously

produced, will be resolved on an issue-by-issue

basis.

5. Defendant’s motion in limine to preclude plaintiff

from referring to Mr. Williams as an employee of

GunnAllen is DENIED, subject to being renewed at

trial if a further showing of his status is made.

6. Defendant’s motion in limine to preclude plaintiff

from referring to Ms. Emrick as an officer or

director of GunnAllen is GRANTED. 

7. Defendant’s motions in limine to preclude reference

to the fact that neither Mr. Williams nor any

GunnAllen employees testified at the first trial

were withdrawn.

8. Defendant’s motion in limine to preclude plaintiff

from introducing evidence that Continental Brokerage

was closed down by the regulators is GRANTED on the

grounds that such evidence is irrelevant. To the

extent that such evidence is relevant, its probative

value would be outweighed by the danger of unfair

prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the

jury. See FRE 403. 

9. Defendant’s motions in limine to preclude plaintiff

Case 3:05-cv-01510-BZ Document 152 Filed 11/06/06 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

from introducing evidence about any other customer

complaints against Mr. Williams or GunnAllen are

DENIED insofar as such evidence is relevant to the

issue of notice.

10. Defendant’s motion in limine to preclude plaintiff

from introducing evidence about any deficiencies

identified in regulatory examinations of GunnAllen

is DENIED insofar as such evidence is relevant to

the issue of notice.

Dated: November 6, 2006

 Bernard Zimmerman

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\YATES 2\TRIAL 2\RULINGS.OBJ.MOL.NEW.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-01510-BZ Document 152 Filed 11/06/06 Page 3 of 3