Jenkins v. Trueman
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:19-cv-08350
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jenkins v. Trueman, Judge Chhabria granted some evidence motions, denied others as moot, and limited one expert’s rebuttal testimony.
Judith Jenkins and the defendants, including Jeffrey William Trueman, were affected by limits on testimony, expert rebuttal, and trial evidence.
What happened
In Jenkins v. Trueman, the parties asked the court to decide before trial what testimony and other evidence could be presented. The court noted that these preliminary evidence rulings could be revised during trial.
The court granted the defendants’ unopposed motions to prevent Jenkins from testifying and to prevent her earlier testimony from being used. It denied as moot Jenkins’s request to exclude documents and witnesses that had not previously been disclosed because the defendants were not offering any improperly undisclosed evidence. The court also granted, to a limited extent, Jenkins’s request concerning expert Phipps: he could challenge the calculations of Jenkins’s expert, Ray, but could not testify about whether Science Medical’s payments were proper. Jenkins’s request concerning expert Parrish was denied as moot because the parties agreed that Jenkins’s expert would not address Trueman’s possible ethical violations, so the defendants would not offer Parrish’s rebuttal testimony.
Judge Vince Chhabria issued the rulings on October 19, 2021. The order resolved the listed pretrial evidence motions but stated that the rulings could be revised at trial.
The detailed version
- Jenkins v. Trueman · No. 3:19-cv-08350
- Vince Chhabria
- Oct. 19, 2021
Background
The court issued an order summarizing rulings on the parties’ motions in limine. A motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the court to decide whether particular evidence or testimony may be presented at trial. The court cautioned that a ruling on such a motion may be revised during trial.
Rulings
1. Jenkins’s testimony and prior testimony. The defendants’ motions to prevent Jenkins from testifying and to prevent her prior testimony from being used at trial were granted as unopposed.
2. Undisclosed documents and witnesses. Jenkins’s motion to exclude documents not previously produced and witnesses not previously disclosed was denied as moot. The court explained that the defendants were not offering evidence that had not been properly disclosed. Any party seeking to introduce evidence that had not yet been produced was required to ask the court for permission.
3. Phipps’s expert testimony. Jenkins’s motion to exclude Phipps’s testimony as an expert witness was granted to the extent that Phipps’s testimony went beyond the testimony of Jenkins’s expert, Ray. Phipps could not offer rebuttal expert testimony about whether Science Medical’s payments were proper. He could offer rebuttal expert testimony only challenging Ray’s calculations.
4. Parrish’s expert testimony. Jenkins’s motion to exclude Parrish’s testimony as an expert witness was denied as moot, consistent with the discussion at the pretrial conference. The parties had agreed that Jenkins’s expert would not offer an opinion about Trueman’s potential ethical violations at trial. As a result, the defendants would not introduce Parrish’s rebuttal expert testimony.
Disposition
The order granted the defendants’ two motions as unopposed; denied as moot Jenkins’s motion concerning previously undisclosed documents and witnesses; granted, to the stated extent, Jenkins’s motion concerning Phipps; and denied as moot Jenkins’s motion concerning Parrish. Judge Vince Chhabria entered the order on October 19, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.