You're viewing Docket Item 55 from the case Lau v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case3:11-cv-01940-MEJ Document55 Filed12/13/12 Page1 of 2

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

Northern District of California

DON LAU,

v.

Plaintiff,

MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC,
Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 11-01940 MEJ
ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE
AND SETTING FURTHER PRETRIAL
DEADLINES

On December 13, 2012, the Court held a pretrial conference in this matter, at which time

Plaintiff Don Lau and Defendant Mercedes-Banz presented argument on their respective motions in
limine. (Dkt. Nos. 45, 52). The Court now issues the following rulings and sets further deadlines for
this matter.

With respect to Defendant’s motion in limine seeking to exclude testimony from Plaintiff’s

proffered expert, Daniel Calef, the Court DENIES the motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE to
Defendant reasserting its motion following Defendant’s deposition of Mr. Calef on December 28,
2012.

As to Plaintiff’s motion in limine seeking to preclude Defendant from introducing evidence
that Plaintiff has made prior claims pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and has
had other cars repurchased, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion as follows: Defendant may proffer
such evidence for impeachment purposes only, subject to any other valid objections.

At the hearing, Defendant for the first time raised an issue relating to Plaintiff’s failure to

respond to a special interrogatory seeking information about the number of vehicles Plaintiff owned
or had registered in corporate names on certain dates. Defendant explained that the answer to the
interrogatory may affect whether the vehicle qualifies as a consumer good under the statute, and thus




T
T
R
R
U
U
O
O
C
C
T
T
C
C
I
I
R
R
T
T
S
S
I
I
D
D
S
S
E
E
T
T
A
A
T
T
S
S
D
D
E
E
T
T
I
I
N
N
U
U







a
a
i
i
n
n
r
r
o
o
f
f
i
i
l
l
a
a
C
C



f
f
o
o






t
t
c
c
i
i
r
r
t
t
s
s
i
i
D
D
n
n
r
r
e
e
h
h
t
t
r
r
o
o
N
N


e
e
h
h
t
t


r
r
o
o
F
F

Case3:11-cv-01940-MEJ Document55 Filed12/13/12 Page2 of 2

whether Plaintiff has standing to bring his claim. While the Court queries why Defendant waited
until a pretrial conference to seek what essentially should have been done as a motion to compel
before the close of discovery, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has failed to articulate
any justification for failing to timely respond to this interrogatory. The Court therefore ORDERS
Plaintiff to serve his response to the interrogatory no later than December 20, 2012. Defendant shall
have until January 4, 2013, to file a brief raising any challenges to Plaintiff’s standing under the
statute based on such information. Plaintiff’s response shall be due no later than January 7, 2013.

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the parties will have 8 hours each to try this case,

which includes opening and closing statements, as well as cross-examination.

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the parties shall appear for an emergency settlement
conference before January 10, 2013. The parties will be advised of the date and settlement judge by
separate order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2012

_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

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




T
T
R
R
U
U
O
O
C
C
T
T
C
C
I
I
R
R
T
T
S
S
I
I
D
D
S
S
E
E
T
T
A
A
T
T
S
S
D
D
E
E
T
T
I
I
N
N
U
U







a
a
i
i
n
n
r
r
o
o
f
f
i
i
l
l
a
a
C
C



f
f
o
o






t
t
c
c
i
i
r
r
t
t
s
s
i
i
D
D
n
n
r
r
e
e
h
h
t
t
r
r
o
o
N
N


e
e
h
h
t
t


r
r
o
o
F
F