Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00653/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00653-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 23:1441 Contract Real Estate

---

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Kurt F. Vote, # 160496 

William H. Littlewood, # 202877 

Alice M. Dostálová, # 244513 

McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD 

 WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 

P.O. Box 28912 

5 River Park Place East 

Fresno, CA 93720-1501 

Telephone: (559) 433-1300 

Facsimile: (559) 433-2300 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

JAMES M. OLVEY 

(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION 

JAMES M. OLVEY, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ERROTABERE RANCHES, a California 

partnership; DANIEL D. ERROTABERE, 

an individual; JEAN ERROTABERE, an 

individual, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:06-CV-00653-OWW 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE

Hearing: 

Date: March 27, 2008 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Ctrm: 3 (Judge Wanger) 

The Motions in Limine filed by Plaintiff JAMES M. OLVEY, an individual 

(“Plaintiff”) came on for hearing on March 27, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3 of the Court, the 

Honorable Oliver W. Wanger presiding. Appearing on behalf of Plaintiff was Kurt F. Vote of 

McCormick, Barstow. Appearing on behalf of Defendants ERROTABERE RANCHES, a 

California partnership (“ER”); DANIEL D. ERROTABERE, an individual (“DAN”); and JEAN 

ERROTABERE, an individual (“JEAN”) (collectively, with DAN and ER, “Defendants”) was 

Scott J. Ivy of Lang, Richert & Patch. The Court, after having read and considered the pleadings 

filed in support of and in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine, and having heard and 

considered the oral argument of counsel, makes the following Orders. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 128 Filed 04/01/08 Page 1 of 5
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, 

SHEPPARD, W AYTE &

CARRUTH LLP 

5 RIVER PARK PLACE EAST

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 

[PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1: 

Plaintiff’s Motion to prevent all counsel and witnesses from offering any evidence 

or argument at the trial of this action concerning the general reputation of any party or witness for 

truthfulness or honesty, or lack thereof is DENIED without prejudice. 

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2: 

Plaintiff’s Motion to prevent all counsel and witnesses from offering any evidence 

or argument at the trial of this action regarding evidence, witnesses, or documents not disclosed in 

discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED and will be enforced as 

to both Plaintiff and Defendants, subject to the exceptions discussed on the record by the Court 

and counsel at the hearing on the parties’ Motions in Limine. 

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3: 

Plaintiff’s Motion to prevent all counsel and witnesses from offering any evidence 

or argument in any form at the trial of this action relating to four (4) deposition excerpts identified 

by the parties as Exhibits D153-D156 is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4: 

Plaintiff’s Motion to prevent all counsel and witnesses from offering any evidence 

or argument in any form at the trial of this action relating to the fact that Plaintiff provided 

Supplemental Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Admission Nos. 13 and 14 after Defendants 

sought and/or obtained Plaintiff’s telephone records in discovery is GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part. To the extent that Defendants offer a redacted version of Plaintiff’s telephone 

phone records, evidencing only the March 30, 2005 telephone call in question, and can offer 

proper authentication via a custodial declaration or a live witness from the telephone service 

provider for same, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. However, unless and until Defendants offer 

the redacted version of the records with appropriate authentication, Plaintiff’s Motion is 

GRANTED. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 128 Filed 04/01/08 Page 2 of 5
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, 

SHEPPARD, W AYTE &

CARRUTH LLP 

5 RIVER PARK PLACE EAST

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 

[PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Additionally, the Court on the record made the following orders concerning the 

scope of impeachment and the use which may be made of the withdrawn claims, as referenced in 

the parties’ Stipulation, filed as Document 50 with the Court: 

1. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants nor their counsel nor any witnesses called 

by any of the parties to this proceeding shall mention, argue, discuss, testify regarding, or allude 

in any way in the presence of the jury to the filing, maintenance or dismissal of the First through 

Fourth claims for relief in the Complaint on file herein nor any of the factual bases or legal 

allegations underlying same. 

2. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants nor their counsel nor any witnesses called 

by any of the parties to this proceeding shall mention, argue, discuss, testify regarding, or allude 

in any way in the presence of the jury to the adequacy of the disclosures by Defendants or any 

alleged discrepancies or misrepresentations or acts of concealment regarding the Crescent Canal 

stock, the alleged purchase price discrepancy regarding Plaintiff’s parcel, the alleged failure to 

disclose the true purchase price of Plaintiff’s parcel of property, or any other factual claims which 

underlie the now-dismissed First through Fourth claims for relief in the Complaint. 

3. Defendants and their counsel shall be permitted to, but are not required to, 

introduce evidence of any or all of the following sworn statements by Plaintiff concerning 

Plaintiff’s alleged receipt of the Purchase Agreement between Defendants and the Borbas on or 

about April 7, 2005: Plaintiff’s deposition, 99:23 – 100:3 (Exhibit JX25); 100:25 – 101:1 (Exhibit 

JX26); 101:14-19 (Exhibit JX27); 108:12-16 (Exhibit JX28); and 203:16-19 (with objection at 

203:18 redacted) (Exhibit JX31); 

4. Defendants and their counsel shall be permitted to, but are not required to, 

introduce evidence of any or all of the following sworn statements by Plaintiff concerning 

Plaintiff’s actual receipt of the Purchase Agreement between Defendants and the Borbas on or 

about March 30, 2005: Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendants’ Requests for 

Admission Nos. 13 (Exhibit JX19) and 14 (Exhibit JX20) and Plaintiff’s deposition 174:1-3 

(Exhibit JX29) and 174:17-24 (Exhibit JX30); 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 128 Filed 04/01/08 Page 3 of 5
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, 

SHEPPARD, W AYTE &

CARRUTH LLP 

5 RIVER PARK PLACE EAST

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 

[PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

5. Except as expressly set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4, above, neither 

Defendants nor their counsel nor any witnesses called by Defendants shall mention, argue, 

discuss, testify regarding, or allude in any way in the presence of the jury to any other sworn or 

unsworn statements or claims by Plaintiff concerning his alleged receipt of the Purchase 

Agreement between the Defendants and the Borbas on or about April 7, 2005 or his actual receipt 

of the Purchase Agreement between the Defendants and the Borbas on or about March 30, 2005; 

6. Defendants withdraw their proposed Exhibit 26 as identified in the parties’ 

Joint Pre-Trial Conference Statement, which was a cassette tape of a voicemail left by Plaintiff 

for one or more of Defendants on or about March 30, 2005, and neither Defendants nor their 

counsel nor any witnesses called by any of the parties to this proceeding shall mention, argue, 

discuss, testify regarding, or allude in any way in the presence of the jury to said voicemail 

message or the contents or tone thereof - except as expressly provided for herein; 

7. The parties agree that a redacted version of Defendants’ Exhibit 27 as 

identified in the parties’ Joint Pre-Trial Conference Statement, now marked as Trial Exhibit JX32, 

shall be admissible in evidence, with the redacted version including only the underlined portions 

of the document; and 

8. Plaintiff withdraws the following documents marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibits 

in the parties’ Joint Pre-Trial Conference Statement: Exhibits 10, 17, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

33, 35, 37 and 39. 

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 5: 

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order continuing the trial of this matter for sixty (60) 

days, or to the first available trial date thereafter as directed by the Court is DENIED. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 128 Filed 04/01/08 Page 4 of 5
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, 

SHEPPARD, W AYTE &

CARRUTH LLP 

5 RIVER PARK PLACE EAST

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 

[PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

General Order re Motions in Limine: 

The Court orders that no mention be made of the fact that any or all of said 

Motions have been filed or of any ruling by the Court on any or all of these Motions. This 

includes, but is not limited to, any suggestions or implications to the jury that Plaintiff has moved 

to “hide” relevant evidence or proof of Defendants’ allegations, or that the Court has excluded 

evidence or proof on any issue. The Court further orders all counsel, parties and witnesses 

(including “independent” witnesses) to comply with the Court’s rulings and to abstain from any 

reference to any of the items or evidence or argument which have been excluded without first 

obtaining the express permission of the Court outside the presence of the jury. 

Trial counsel for both parties are to inform each of the witnesses called by them of 

the Court’s rulings on both Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine and Defendants’ Motions in Limine

before any witness is called to testify. 

Dated: April 1, 2008 

 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

 The Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

 Judge of the United States District Court 

1202720.v1 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00653-OWW -SMS Document 128 Filed 04/01/08 Page 5 of 5