Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00079/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00079-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:0078m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1

3:17-cv-00079-H-LL

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENSOURCE INVESTMENTS LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK A. WILLIS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00079-H-LL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

MARK WILLIS’S MOTION IN 

LIMINE TO EXCLUDE 

TRANSCRIPT OF BANKRUPTCY 

PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION 

WITH HOPEWELL-PILOT 

PROJECT, LLC AND TITLE 

ROVER, LLC 

[Doc. No. 171.]

On January 13, 2020, Defendant Mark Willis (“Defendant”) filed a motion in limine

to exclude the transcript of bankruptcy proceedings for Hopewell Pilot Project, LLC and 

Title Rover, LLC. (Doc. No. 171.) On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff Ensource Investments 

LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition to the motion in limine. (Doc. No. 178.) The Court 

held a hearing on the motion in limine on February 3, 2020. Bonnie McKnight, Richard 

E. Nawracaj, and Aaron D. Sadock appeared for Plaintiff. Shannon D. Sweeney, Michael 

A. Zarconi, and Robert Allenby appeared for Defendant. For the reasons below, the Court 

grants Defendant’s motion in limine, but issues additional instructions in this order on 

circumstances where Plaintiff may read aloud portions of the transcript at trial.

Case 3:17-cv-00079-H-LL Document 193 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:17-cv-00079-H-LL

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

Defendant seeks an order preventing Plaintiff from introducing evidence or 

argument relating to a transcript of a motion hearing held on March 28, 2018 in the United 

States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Case No. 17-23880-H2-11 

(“Hopewell Bankruptcy”), the Honorable Judge David R. Jones presiding. (Doc. No. 171.) 

Defendant believes that Plaintiff will introduce portions of the transcript where Judge Jones 

harshly criticized Defendant in connection with the Hopewell Bankruptcy proceedings and 

made statements finding Defendant “non-credible.” (Doc. No. 171.) Defendant claims

that the transcript should be excluded for three reasons: (1) the transcript is irrelevant, (2) 

the transcript would be unduly prejudicial, and (3) the transcript is inadmissible hearsay. 

(Id.)

Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or 

less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Defendant argues 

that the transcript of the Hopewell Bankruptcy proceedings is irrelevant because it involves 

an entirely unrelated proceeding, and that any probative value of Judge Jones’s statements 

is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Plaintiff 

argues that the transcript is relevant to demonstrate Defendant’s knowledge and control of 

both Hopewell and Title Rover, the current status of those two companies, and Defendant’s 

involvement in soliciting Plaintiff’s investment.

First, the section of the transcript containing Judge Jones’s statements is 

inadmissible under Rule 403. “[F]actual testimony from a judge can unduly affect a jury.” 

United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1033 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Chein v. Shumsky, 373

F.3d 978, 989 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc)). This is because “jurors are likely to defer to 

findings and determinations relevant to credibility made by an authoritative, professional 

factfinder rather than determine those issues for themselves.” Id. Thus, United States v. 

Sine held that evidence of a judge’s statements “directly opining on [defendant’s] 

motivations and truthfulness” in a prior civil hearing was inadmissible under Rule 403, 

since it “heavily weigh[s] on the unfair prejudice side of the balance.” Id. at 1035. Here, 

as in Sine, evidence of Judge Jones’s statements criticizing Defendant’s credibility is 

Case 3:17-cv-00079-H-LL Document 193 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:17-cv-00079-H-LL

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

unduly prejudicial and inadmissible under Rule 403.

1

 

Plaintiff argues that Judge Jones’s ruling and reasoning are relevant to illustrate the 

“legal significance” of the conversion of the Chapter 7 conversion of Hopewell and Title 

Rover and the duties and obligations concerning the Title Rover software. But those facts 

have little to no probative value in this case. The parties do not contest that Hopewell and 

Title Rover have entered bankruptcy proceedings. And those facts have little to no bearing 

on the issues remaining for trial, i.e. whether Defendant misrepresented the nature of 

Defendant’s technology when soliciting Plaintiff’s investment in Defendant’s companies. 

Second, the Court declines to admit the rest of the transcript under Rule 403. Fed. 

R. Evid. 403 (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is 

substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue 

delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”). The bulk of the 

transcript contains testimony by Defendant, and it would be inappropriate to elevate a 

written form of Defendant’s testimony when Defendant has already been identified as a 

witness who can testify directly at trial. Further, the transcript of the bankruptcy 

 

1

In the alternative, the Court finds the statements of Judge Jones to be inadmissible hearsay. 

“Hearsay” is defined as a declarant’s out of court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. 

Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, unless subject to certain exceptions. 

Fed. R. Evid. 802. “A court judgment is hearsay ‘to the extent that it is offered to prove the truth of the 

matters asserted in the judgment.’” United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 

United States v. Boulware, 384 F.3d 794, 806 (9th Cir. 2004)); see also United States v. Grey, 891 F.3d 

1054, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (same). 

Plaintiff argues that Judge Jones’s statements are legally operative verbal conduct because the 

statements go to the bankruptcy status of Title Rover and Hopewell and established legal obligations 

related to the preservation of Title Rover’s software. See United States v. Boulware, 384 F.3d 794, 806 

(9th Cir. 2004) (a prior judgment is not hearsay “to the extent that it is offered as legally operative verbal 

conduct that determined the rights and duties of the parties”). But as the Court states above, Judge Jones’s 

comments on the companies’ bankruptcy status or Title Rover’s obligation to preserve its software have

little to no relevance to the issues remaining for trial. Thus, Judge Jones’s statements are relevant only 

for their criticism of Defendant’s credibility, meaning the statements are inadmissible hearsay. See Sine, 

493 F.3d at 1036 (judge’s statements in a related civil suit criticizing a defendant’s credibility were 

inadmissible hearsay since “the introduction of discrete judicial factfindings and analysis underlying the 

judgment to prove the truth of those findings . . . constitutes the use of hearsay”).

Case 3:17-cv-00079-H-LL Document 193 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:17-cv-00079-H-LL

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

proceeding extends over one hundred pages, and Plaintiff does not identify any particular 

pages or lines that it seeks to defend as admissible. Presenting the jury with such a lengthy 

document, from an entirely separate proceeding, would confuse the jury and needlessly 

waste time. Thus, the Court grants Defendant’s motion in limine and declines to admit the 

transcript of the Hopewell Bankruptcy proceedings. If Plaintiff wishes to read aloud 

questions and answers from Defendant’s testimony from the transcript of the Hopewell 

Bankruptcy proceedings, Plaintiff must return at trial identifying and physically

highlighting specific page and line numbers of the transcript, and the Court will later 

determine whether those specific excerpts are admissible under hearsay rules and Rule 403.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 3, 2020

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:17-cv-00079-H-LL Document 193 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4