Mangahas v. Eight Oranges Inc.

Background

The parties filed motions in limine, which are pretrial requests asking the court to decide whether particular evidence or testimony may be presented. The defendants sought to prevent the plaintiffs from using Keno Dacusin’s deposition instead of presenting him as a live witness. The plaintiffs sought to exclude testimony from Linze Wu, Zeqi Zhou, Suttiprapa Rachata, and Napatwaran Amnuaychottha.

The plaintiffs stated that they had withdrawn their deposition designations for Wen Bin Zhu and would present Zhu as a live witness. The court therefore did not address the part of the defendants’ motion concerning Zhu.

Rulings

The court denied the defendants’ motion to preclude the plaintiffs from using Dacusin’s deposition in lieu of live testimony. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4)(B) permits a party to use a witness’s deposition if the court finds that the witness is more than 100 miles from the hearing or trial, unless the party offering the deposition caused the witness’s absence. The court found that Dacusin resides in Honolulu, Hawaii, and that there was no indication the plaintiffs were responsible for his relocation. The court therefore admitted Dacusin’s deposition testimony.

The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Wu, Zhou, Rachata, and Amnuaychottha. The court explained that the witness-disclosure rules require identification of witnesses likely to have discoverable information and require updates only when corrective information has not otherwise been made known during discovery. The court found that the plaintiffs would have known from the defendants’ interrogatory responses and document production that these individuals were likely to have discoverable information. The court also noted that Wu and Zhou were members of the Rule 23 class, but that a defendant’s ability to present an effective defense can sometimes outweigh the interests of absent class members in remaining passive.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion in limine was denied. The plaintiffs’ motion in limine was denied. The court did not rule on the portion of the defendants’ motion concerning Zhu. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 170 and 173.