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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH STAFFORD, an individual, )

) 2:04-cv-0047-GEB-EFB

Plaintiff, )

) CLARIFICATION RULING

v. )

)

UNITED TREASURES, INC., a ) 

Washington corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

)

This filing provides the parties with clarification of the

Order filed September 14, 2006. 

Notice Instruction

The “Notice instruction” is unnecessary in light of

Plaintiff’s contention that “the notice given to Defendant’s counsel

constituted substantial performance of notice required by contract,”

and the parties’ agreement that a substantial performance instruction

will be given. (Order, Sept. 14, 2006, at 1.) Therefore, the version

of the “notice” instruction included as No. 34 in the tentative

instructions filed September 23, 2005, is deleted. The ruling on this

issue in the September 23 filing is withdrawn because it reached an

issue that did not have to be decided.

///// 

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB Document 151 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Instruction No. 3

The following sentence in the parties’ Proposed Instruction

No. 3, which the parties filed September 9, 2005, will not be included

in the final instructions because a judge is not required to tell the

jury in the instructions to answer a specific question on the verdict

form: “Please answer the following question on the jury verdict form: 

Do you find that the defendant intentionally used the trademark

knowing it was an infringement?” 

Instructions Nos. 9 and 10

The agreement the parties have reached on Instructions Nos.

9 and 10 is appreciated, and clarifies what is at issue.

Instruction No. 12

The parties have agreed that Instruction No. 21 in the

September 23 filing should “be given as written, without any reference

to the specific amount being requested by Plaintiff.” (Parties’ Joint

Response, Sept. 18, 2006, at 4.)

Double Recovery

Plaintiff’s position on the double recovery issue will be

adopted. Therefore Instruction No. 27 in the September 23 filing is

deleted. 

JOINT PROPOSAL

The parties state they will jointly make changes to the

Instructions and Verdict Forms. The parties are requested to ensure

that the instructions they submit state the “rules and principles in

simple, everyday, nonlegalistic language” to the extent this is

feasible. Native American Arts, Inc. v. The Waldron Corp., 399 F.3d

871, 875 (7th Cir. 2005). If a party opines that any instruction is

legally incorrect, that party shall file a written objection to the

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB Document 151 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 3
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

instruction(s) no later than October 5, 2006, in which the party

identifies the instruction(s) by number, the authority supporting the

party’s position, any requested change(s), and precisely where within

the instruction(s) the revision(s) should be placed. If the opposing

party’s response is not filed at the same time it shall be filed no

later than October 17, 2006.

Dated: September 19, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB Document 151 Filed 09/19/06 Page 3 of 3