Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

INTAGIO CORPORATION,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-3592 PJH 

v. FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

Pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this final pretrial

order is hereby entered and shall control the course of the trial unless modified by a

subsequent order. The pretrial statement of the parties is incorporated herein except as

modified by the court's ruling on the pretrial motions and objections.

I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiff:

1) Motion to exclude evidence and argument regarding defendant’s fraudulent

inducement defense is GRANTED, to the extent that such evidence or

argument is based on plaintiff’s purported failure to disclose that a cash fee

was required. 

2) Motion to exclude evidence and argument regarding defendant’s fraudulent

inducement defense is furthermore GRANTED, to the extent that such

evidence or argument is based on plaintiff’s purported concealment of the

agreements at issue from defendant’s president, Mr. Bednar.

3) Motion to exclude evidence or argument that the agreements at issue are

unconscionable, illegal, or otherwise invalid, is GRANTED. The court will

entertain at trial only those issues going to defendant’s agreement and

authority to enter into the arbitration clause at issue – namely, those issues

going to actual authority, ostensible authority, and/or ratification. Evidence or

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 226 Filed 02/20/08 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

2

argument regarding the defense of fraud or fraudulent inducement is only

admissible, to the extent such evidence or argument challenges the making of

the arbitration provision of the agreements specifically. The court will not

consider at trial evidence of fraud at trial, if such evidence challenges the

making of the contract generally. See, e.g., Three Valleys Municipal Water

Dist., 925 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1991)(“if the claim is fraud in the inducement of

the arbitration clause itself – an issue which goes to the ‘making’ of the

agreement to arbitrate – the federal court may proceed to adjudicate it. But

the statutory language does not permit the federal court to consider claims of

fraud in the inducement of the contract generally...”); see also Nagrampa v.

MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1276-77 (9th Cir. 2006)(same generally). 

4) Motion to exclude evidence or argument that Mr. DiMarino failed to read the

agreements at issue before signing them is DENIED. Notwithstanding, the

defendant may not invoke such evidence or argument as a defense to the

agreements at issue. A limiting instruction shall therefore be issued

instructing the jury that such evidence or argument is not admissible for

purposes of exculpating defendant. 

5) Motion to exclude evidence or argument that plaintiff or its counsel conspired

to change Mr. DiMarino’s sworn testimony is GRANTED.

6) Motion to exclude evidence and argument concerning the damages that

either party has incurred, including evidence of attorney’s fees, is GRANTED

as the evidence is irrelevant. Evidence establishing that the threshold

amount has been met to require application of the arbitration agreements,

however, is admissible. 

7) Motion to exclude evidence or argument concerning Mr. DiMarino’s July 11,

2006 Declaration is GRANTED. The declaration constitutes hearsay, and

defendant has failed to demonstrate that any exception applies.

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 226 Filed 02/20/08 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

Defendant:

1) Motion to exclude October 31, 2006 Declaration of Mr. DiMarino is

GRANTED, as the declaration is hearsay, and no exception applies. 

2) Motion to exclude Mr. DiMarino’s deposition testimony, including all

communications to and from Mr. DiMarino, is DENIED as the testimony and

evidence are appropriate subjects for trial.

3) Motion to exclude evidence regarding communications to and from the

American Arbitration Association is GRANTED, as the communications are

irrelevant. 

4) Motion to exclude witnesses Mr. Lewicky and Mr. Jeck is DENIED. Both

witnesses have been deposed, thereby making plaintiff’s initial failure to

disclose the witnesses harmless. Furthermore, by separate filing on February

14, 2008, plaintiff has duly submitted its written consent to Mr. Lewicky’s

testimony as required by this court’s prior order. 

5) Motion to exclude Addendum D to the agreements at issue is GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part. To the extent that either party intends to rely on the

handwritten notations contained within the Addendum, the handwritten

notations are admissible only if properly authenticated. Otherwise, and

without proper authentication of the handwritten notes, such notes must be

redacted prior to admission of the document as evidence. 

6) Motion to exclude testimony of Kathleen Evans, Stephanie Johnstone, and

Don Scherer is DENIED, as the testimony of all is relevant and admissible,

and the witnesses were properly disclosed.

7) Motion to exclude all of plaintiff’s exhibits with the exception of those setting

forth the agreements at issue is DENIED. Any concerns with respect to time

consumption and efficiency will be adequately addressed through the

imposition of time limits. 

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 226 Filed 02/20/08 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

II. VOIR DIRE

The proposed joint voir dire and plaintiff’s separately proposed questions will be

incorporated into the court’s voir dire of the jury panel.

III. JURY INSTRUCTIONS and VERDICT FORMS

The jointly proposed instructions will be given. The court will determine after further

argument during a charge conference the separately proposed instructions of plaintiff which

number 4 - 15 and defendant’s separately proposed instructions which number 9, 19, 16-

240. These instruction as appear to be modifications of standard instructions. However,

defendant’s proposed instructions numbered 25 - 51 will not be given as they are all

comprised of language pulled from various cases on various different subjects and are

more argumentative than instructive. The parties shall meet and confer for the purpose of

agreeing on instructions. The court anticipates that there should be no more than 10

instructions on which agreement cannot be reached. The revised joint set along with a

blind copy and the no more than 10 contested instructions shall be submitted by February

25, 2008. A jointly proposed verdict form is also required.

IV. TRIAL SCHEDULE AND TIME LIMITS

Five days instead of four will be allotted for the trial. We will be in session 8:30 -

4:30 the first day and 8:30 - 1:30 for the other days. The court will be dark on Wednesday,

its law and motion day. Each party will be permitted 7.5 hours to present its case excluding

time for jury selection and closing arguments.

V. SETTLEMENT

The parties shall meet and confer about settling this dispute and report to the court

no later than February 25, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2008 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 226 Filed 02/20/08 Page 4 of 4