Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01080/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01080-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER McINTOSH, CASE NO. CV F 07-1080 LJO GSA

Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN

LIMINE 

vs. (Docs. 206-211.)

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

UNIVERSAL ENTERPRISES,

INC., et al,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Roger McIntosh (“Mr. McIntosh”) filed six motions in limine. Defendants Northern

California Universal Enterprises Company, Inc. (“NCUE”), Lotus Developments,L.P.(“Lotus”),Dennis

W. DeWalt, Inc. (“DeWalt”), and City of Wasco (“Wasco”) oppose Mr. McIntosh’s motions in limine. 

The parties’ moving and opposition papers are clear. This Court needs no oral argument on Mr.

McIntosh’s motions in limine. This Court issues the following rulings on Mr. McIntosh’s motions in

limine and VACATES the February 12, 2010 hearing on Mr. McIntosh’s motions in limine.

MR. McINTOSH’S MIL NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE WASCO EXPERT OPINION WHETHER MR. 1

McINTOSH’S COPYRIGHTED WORKS AND MAP 6451 ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR

Mr. McIntosh seeks to exclude opinion of Wasco civil engineer expert Steven Wong (“Mr.

As used in headings, “MIL” refers to motion in limine.

1

1

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 253 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 5
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

Wong”) whether Mr. McIntosh’s copyrighted works and Map 6451 are substantially similar as legal

conclusion beyond Mr. Wong’s expertise.

Wasco appears to limit Mr. Wong’s testimony as to his observations between Mr. McIntosh’s

copyrighted works and Tentative and Final Maps 6451 without concluding that they are substantially

similar. Wasco concedes that Mr. Wong is unqualified to opine on a legal conclusion that Mr.

McIntosh’s copyrighted works and Tentative and Final Maps 6451 are substantially similar. As such,

Mr. Wong’s testimony is properly limited to his observations between Mr. McIntosh’s copyrighted

works, on one hand, and Tentative and Final Maps 6451, on the other hand, without concluding that they

are substantially similar.

ORDER

This Court GRANTS the motion in limine insofar as to LIMIT Mr. Wong’s testimony as to his

observations between Mr. McIntosh’s copyrighted works, on the one hand, and Tentative and Final

Maps 6451, on the other hand, without concluding that they are substantially similar.

MR. McINTOSH’S MIL NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR LITIGATION

Mr. McIntosh seeks to exclude evidence that his former Martin-McIntosh partnership pursued

a breach of contract claim against Wasco arising from original developer Legacy Group, L.P.’s failed

original subdivision development. 

Wasco fails to demonstrate how the prior litigation supports impeachment. Wasco does not

identify the evidence it intends to use for impeachment and presumablysuch evidence is Mr. McIntosh’s

settlement demands or agreed to settlement. 

Wasco fails to address the relevance of Mr. McIntosh’s prior, resolved breach of contract claim

– either for Mr. McIntosh’s impeachment or motive to support a post-judgment award of attorney fees. 

Wasco does not claim an offset based on amounts Mr. McIntosh received to settle the claim. Evidence

of the prior claim would serve to disparage Mr. McIntosh and confuse issues.

ORDER

This Court GRANTS the motion in limine to EXCLUDE evidence of Mr. McIntosh’s prior

litigation and settlement.

/ / /

2

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 253 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 5
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

MR. McINTOSH’S MIL NO. 3 TO LIMIT DeWALT WITNESSES AS TO HOW TENTATIVE

AND FINAL MAPS 6451 WERE DRAWN

Mr. McIntosh seeks to limit testimony as to drawing of Tentative and Final Maps 6451 to four

former or current DeWalt employees and to prohibit new witness testimony as to how details of Map

6451 were determined.

In the absence of DeWalt discovery responses to identify additional witnesses, testimony of

Tentative and Final Map 6451 drawing is limited to Jeff Gutierrez, Greg Black, Sarah Burgi and Josh

Woodward. However, these witnesses are not limited to their deposition testimony (as defendants claim

Mr. McIntosh seeks) but may be impeached with it.

ORDER

This Court GRANTS the motion in limine to LIMIT testimony of Tentative and Final Map 6451

drawing to Jeff Gutierrez, Greg Black, Sarah Burgi and Josh Woodward but their trial testimony is not

limited to the scope of their deposition testimony. 

MR. McINTOSH’S MIL NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANTS’ EXPENSES IN DAMAGES

PHASE

If Mr. McIntosh proves defendants’ willful copyright infringement during the liability phase, Mr.

McIntosh seeks to exclude deduction of defendants’ expenses from their gross profits in the damages

phase.

Mr. McIntosh fails to substantiate his claim that defendants may not deduct expenses. 17 U.S.C.

§ 504(b) provides: “In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present

proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible

expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.” The statute

is contrary to Mr. McIntosh’s position

ORDER

This Court DENIES the motion in limine.

MR. McINTOSH’S MIL NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE WASCO’S BOND DEBT AS A DEDUCTION

TO PROFITS

If Mr. McIntosh proves copyright infringement, Mr. McIntosh seeks to exclude Wasco’s bond

3

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 253 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 5
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

debts to deduct as an expense from profits.

The parties fail to quantify the bond debts. The bond debts were incurred years prior to alleged

infringement. Wasco fails to establish how bond debts incurred in the early 1990s are germane to Wasco

profits earned more than 10 years later. The bond debts are too removed and disconnected from alleged

profits from infringement to constitute deductible expenses.

ORDER

This Court GRANTS the motion in limine to EXCLUDE evidence of Wasco’s bond debts.

MR. McINTOSH’S MIL NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE SURVEYOR HEATH JAMES

Mr. McIntosh seeks to exclude former DeWalt surveyor Heath James’ testimony in that DeWalt

delayed until the pretrial statement witness list to provide James’ correct name and address, and Mr.

McIntosh has not deposed James.

F.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1) addresses failure to provide discovery disclosures or supplements and

provides:

If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule

26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness . . . at a trial,

unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead of

this sanction, the court . . .

(A) may order payment of the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,

caused by the failure;

(B) may inform the jury of the party’s failure; and

(C) may impose other appropriate sanctions, including any of the orders listed in

Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).

There is no indication that DeWalt fulfilled its affirmative duty to update or supplement its

discovery disclosures or responses to reveal James’ place of employment to enable Mr. McIntosh to

subpoena James without undue effort or expense. The record before this Court suggests that DeWalt

desired to spring James’ testimony without the benefit to Mr. McIntosh of James’ deposition. The

proper recourse for DeWalt’s failure to satisfy its F.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1) obligations is to exclude James

as a witness.

ORDER

This Court GRANTS the motion in limine insofar as to exclude JAMES as a witness but denies

4

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 253 Filed 02/10/10 Page 4 of 5
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

other requested relief or sanctions.

ORDER AS TO DUTY OF COUNSEL

Counsel are cautioned against filing motions for reconsideration without legal prerequisites

firmly established. Failure of counsel to raise or articulate points or issues does not justify

reconsideration.

Counsel are discouraged from filing motions “for clarification” when such motions are nothing

more than a statement of disagreement with the Court’s ruling and/or an attempt to modify the ruling. 

Being surprised at the Court’s ruling, no matter where the I.Q. chart’s result lands, is not a basis for such

a motion.

During trial, the parties’ counsel shall meet with the Court each morning prior to jury arrival to

address evidentiary issues and disputes. The jury will NOT be kept waiting. The Court will rule on

matters to the extent possible prior to commencement of trial each day out of the jury’s presence. If such

ruling depends on receipt of testimony or other evidence, the Court will rule as appropriate upon the

receipt of such testimony or evidence. If evidentiary problems are anticipated, the parties’ counsel are

required to notify the Court immediately that a hearing outside the jury’s presence will be required, but

should not expect such hearing while the jury waits in the jury room. Such hearings will take place

before jurors arrive or after they depart.

Finally, should objections be made in front of the jury on a purported violation of a motion in

limine ruling, counsel are expected to object stating the LEGAL ground, followed by reference to the

number of the motion in limine (e.g., “Objection, relevance, violation of plaintiff’s motion in limine no.

4.”)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Case 1:07-cv-01080-LJO-GSA Document 253 Filed 02/10/10 Page 5 of 5