Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02064/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02064-45/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN N. REZNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

HVB AMERICA , INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 06-cv-02064-VC 

PRETRIAL ORDER

The presentation of evidence will be limited to a total of 24 hours (12 hours per side).

Rezner's first motion in limine, to exclude the testimony of three experts on procedural 

grounds, is denied so long as HVB makes them available for deposition. Rezner may present 

rebuttal experts so long as he discloses rebuttal expert reports no later than two days after the 

experts are deposed. HVB is not entitled to depose the rebuttal experts.

Rezner's second motion in limine, to exclude the testimony of Yale and Anastasi, is denied 

without prejudice to raising the matter again during trial.

Rezner's third motion in limine is taken under submission. The Court will issue a written 

ruling on this motion, and on HVB's first motion in limine, some time after April 30, 2015. If the 

parties wish to propose a stipulation that would obviate the need to present the jury with the 

documents that are the subject of this motion and HVB's first motion in limine, they must do so by 

April 30, 2015.

Rezner's fourth motion in limine, to exclude reference to the settlement agreements, is 

granted.

Rezner's fifth motion in limine, to exclude generalized reference to his financial condition, 

is granted, with the caveat that HVB may submit evidence of Rezner's financial condition at or 

Case 3:06-cv-02064-VC Document 626 Filed 04/22/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

around the time of the CARDS transaction that is helpful to understanding that transaction.

Rezner's sixth motion in limine is granted with the same conditions on which his first 

motion in limine is denied.

HVB's first motion in limine is taken under submission, as explained above.

HVB's second motion in limine, to preclude argument that Rezner's alleged injury was 

caused by the cancellation of the loan, is granted, with the caveat that Rezner may present 

evidence of the cancellation of the loan to the extent it is relevant to his argument that HVB or its 

conspirators fraudulently induced him to enter into the transaction.

HVB's third motion in limine, to allow it to present evidence of and argument about 

Rezner's involvement in BLIPs, is denied.

HVB's fourth motion in limine, to preclude Rezner from arguing that HVB or its coconspirators targeted Rezner for the CARDS transaction, is denied.

HVB's fifth motion in limine, to exclude Wheeler's testimony about the opportunity Rezner 

lost to make 9.5 percent on his $4 million, is taken under submission. The Court will have a 

Daubert hearing on either the afternoon of May 6 or the afternoon of May 11, at the plaintiff's 

election. The parties should file simultaneous briefs, not to exceed 15 pages, on this issue by May 

1, 2015. The briefs should include a discussion of whether Rezner is permitted seek these 

damages in the first place. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02064-VC Document 626 Filed 04/22/15 Page 2 of 2