Zavislak v. Netflix, Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-01811
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Zavislak v. Netflix, Judge Davila partly denied and partly granted four evidence motions, allowing some evidence while limiting Zavislak’s testimony.
Mark Zavislak and Netflix, Inc.; the order determines which challenged statements and documents may be considered and how certain exhibits must be submitted.
What happened
In Zavislak v. Netflix, the court decided four motions about what evidence could be used in the case. The motions concerned statements, contract documents, testimony about missing documents, and documents Netflix said Zavislak disclosed too late.
The court allowed a Collective Health customer-service representative’s statement because Netflix authorized Collective Health to discuss plan coverage and claims procedures. It limited Zavislak’s testimony about his doctor’s prescription, allowing him to say only that he received a test. The court also required two documents to be submitted as separate exhibits and allowed the challenged testimony and documents to be considered.
Judge Davila denied Netflix’s first motion in part and granted it in part, granted its second motion, and denied its third and fourth motions. The order did not strike the evidence challenged in the fourth motion, although the court criticized the parties’ discovery practices and said it would decide how much weight to give the evidence.
The detailed version
- Zavislak v. Netflix, Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-01811
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 29, 2023
Background
Netflix filed four motions in limine, which are requests to limit or admit evidence for trial. The court had previously vacated a scheduled bench trial after the parties agreed that their summary-judgment briefing and arguments would serve as the trial arguments, with proposed findings and legal conclusions submitted for the court’s consideration. Netflix filed the motions to preserve its evidentiary objections.
Motion in Limine No. 1: Hearsay
Netflix challenged two statements as hearsay, meaning out-of-court statements offered for the truth of what they assert. The first was a statement by an unnamed Collective Health customer-service representative that a blood test was not preventive and that the Preventive Care Guidebook was a plan document. Zavislak relied on the Netflix-Collective Health Benefit Services Agreement, which authorized Collective Health to provide member support about plan coverage and claims procedures. The court found that Zavislak proved Netflix authorized the statement, so the statement was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). The court overruled Netflix’s objection to that statement.
The second challenged statement concerned Zavislak’s assertion that his physician prescribed the tests as preventive. The court held that Zavislak could testify only that he was administered a test. He could not testify about the test’s purpose or nature because those statements relied on his physicians’ out-of-court statements. The court sustained Netflix’s objection to that testimony and found reliance on Rule 807 inappropriate.
The court therefore denied in part and granted in part Motion in Limine No. 1: it denied the motion as to the Collective Health representative’s statement and granted it as to Zavislak’s statement about his physician’s prescription.
Motion in Limine No. 2: Exhibit 20
Netflix argued that Zavislak improperly combined a 2022 Delta Dental contract amendment with the Dental Administrative Services Contract, executed in 2020, and presented them as one contract. Zavislak argued that the documents were related instruments and represented the latest version of the contract with known amendments.
The court granted the motion and ordered the parties to meet and confer about submitting the two agreements as separate exhibits in place of Exhibit 20.
Motion in Limine No. 3: Secondary Evidence
Netflix argued that testimony from a Collective Health customer-service representative and Collective Health’s designee, Jessica Nelson, was secondary evidence barred by the best-evidence rule because it was being used to prove the contents of written plan materials. Zavislak argued that the representative’s statement was offered as the basis for the adverse benefit determination, not to prove the contents of the Preventive Care Guidebook. He also argued that Netflix controlled the original Plan Matrix and Plan Design Change Confirmations and had notice that he would use secondary evidence.
The court found that the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 1004 had been satisfied and that Netflix had been put on notice. It permitted the statements of the customer-service representative and Jessica Nelson and overruled Netflix’s objection. The court stated that it would give the evidence whatever weight it deemed appropriate. Motion in Limine No. 3 was denied.
Motion in Limine No. 4: Failure to Supplement Discovery
Netflix sought to exclude evidence concerning eight categories of documents because Zavislak allegedly failed to supplement his interrogatory answers. Netflix argued that the delay prejudiced its defense and violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Zavislak responded that Netflix knew about the information from deposition testimony and supplemental disclosures, and that any delay caused no sufficient prejudice.
The court found that Zavislak’s conduct was at fault and disappointing and that the effect on Netflix was not entirely harmless. It nevertheless concluded that the prejudice did not justify striking the evidence. The court denied Motion in Limine No. 4 and stated that it would give the evidence whatever weight it considered appropriate.
Disposition
The court ruled as follows: Motion in Limine No. 1 was DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART; Motion in Limine No. 2 was GRANTED, with separate replacement exhibits required; Motion in Limine No. 3 was DENIED; and Motion in Limine No. 4 was DENIED.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.