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 Defendant did not propose any voir dire questions.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH STAFFORD, an individual,)

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

Plaintiff, )

) TRANSMISSION TO PARTIES

) OF TRIAL DOCUMENTS

v. )

) 

UNITED TREASURES, INC., a )

Washington corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

)

The attached voir dire questions, preliminary jury

instructions, closing jury instructions, and verdict form are provided

to the parties for their consideration.

Plaintiff’s proposed voir dire has been considered but the

precise questions submitted will not be asked because they are not

pertinent enough to the purpose of voir dire.1 The purpose of voir

dire is to “fairly and adequately” probe a juror’s qualifications. 

United States v. Toomey, 764 F.2d 678, 683 (9th Cir. 1985) (indicating

that a party “is not necessarily entitled to test the jurors on their

capacity to accept his theory of the case.”).

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB Document 134 Filed 08/26/05 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 “All aspects” includes when statutory damages are

appropriate, whether the jury can award damages for some but not

all of the works, how the jury decides which statutory range to

use, and what factors should guide the jury in fixing an amount

with in the statutory range.

2

Plaintiff and Defendant’s proposed jury instructions omitted

or provided inadequate instructions for several issues. The parties

are requested to provide adequate proposed jury instructions for

contract conditions as they relate to the breach of contract and

breach of implied covenant claims, the trebling of damages for

trademark infringement, the awarding of attorney fees, the meaning of

“use in commerce” within the false designation of origin instruction,

and the calculation of damages. Specific to the issue of damages,

proposed jury instructions are requested for the calculation of

special damages for the breach of contract and breach of implied

covenant claims, the calculation of general damages for the breach of

implied covenant claim, the calculation of defendant’s profit for the

false designation of origin and false trademark registration claims,

and the calculation of actual damages for the false trademark

registration claim. Additionally, proposed instructions are requested

for all aspects of awarding statutory damages for copyright

infringement.2

In some instances the proposed jury instructions covered

matters disposed of by the Final Pretrial Order either because they

were not preserved for trial or because the fact is undisputed. I

have omitted these matters from the draft jury instructions.

Also, the Plaintiff and Defendant’s proposed verdict forms

omitted or were not clear as to some issues. The parties are

requested to provide clear verdict form questions as to the jury’s

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB Document 134 Filed 08/26/05 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 The parties are directed to meet and confer and attempt

to agree on a joint submission in response to this order. 

Parties may submit proposals on which there is a dispute. Such

independent proposals shall be accompanied by a statement as to

the nature of the dispute and the legal authority supporting the

proposal.

3

verdict on the false trademark registration claim, the appropriateness

of attorney fees for the trademark and copyright infringement claims,

and the awarding of statutory damages for copyright infringement. It

should also be noted that changes to jury instructions may effect the

verdict form; parties are requested to consider the effects any

proposed jury instructions may have and submit the proposed changes to

the verdict form accordingly. 

Adequate proposed instructions and clear verdict form

questions for the above issues must be filed by September 9, 2005, or

the jury will not be instructed as to these issues.3 Moreover, if a

party disagrees with or desires a modification of any of the attached

trial documents, that party shall file a proposed change by

September 9, 2005, with an explanation as to why the proposed change

is required and the authority supporting the change.

Dated: August 26, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB Document 134 Filed 08/26/05 Page 3 of 3