Stellar Labs, Inc. v. FL3XX GmbH
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-05879
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Stellar Labs v. FL3XX, Judge Chen set bench-trial procedures and ruled on evidence motions, granting one, deeming one moot, and denying in part and deferring in part another.
Stellar Labs, Inc. and FL3XX GmbH, whose upcoming bench trial will be governed by the procedures and evidence rulings in the order.
What happened
In Stellar Labs, Inc. v. FL3XX GmbH, the parties agreed to a bench trial, meaning the judge rather than a jury would decide the case. The court set six trial days and gave each side thirteen hours to present its case.
The court set rules for advance notice of witnesses and exhibits, objections, proposed findings of fact, and remote testimony. It also ruled on the parties’ evidence requests: it granted FL3XX’s first motion to exclude expert evidence because neither side had designated an expert; deemed FL3XX’s second motion about late disclosures moot; and denied in part and deferred in part Stellar’s motion to exclude evidence about FL3XX’s claimed damages.
Judge Chen also overruled objections to several exhibits, deferred a ruling on another exhibit, and explained how exhibits and impeachment materials should be handled at trial. The order addressed trial preparation and evidence; it did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
The detailed version
- Stellar Labs, Inc. v. FL3XX GmbH · No. 3:21-cv-05879
- Edward Chen
- Dec. 21, 2023
Nature of the order
This final pretrial conference order sets procedures for the parties’ agreed bench trial. The order does not resolve the underlying claims or counterclaims.
Trial schedule and procedures
The court set six trial days—January 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 17—with trial beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 1:30 p.m. Each side received thirteen hours for opening statements, witness examinations, and closing arguments.
The parties must give at least 48 hours’ notice of witnesses, exhibits, and demonstratives they plan to use, excluding Saturdays and Sundays. Objections must be raised by 6:00 p.m. on the day notice is given, followed by a meeting between the parties to try to resolve the objection. Because the trial will be before the judge, the court expects few objections.
The parties must also file proposed findings of fact on a rolling basis, tied to the evidence presented on each trial day. The court limited each party’s case-in-chief to the witnesses on the joint witness list and directed the parties to report on potential remote witnesses. Stellar represented that it would not call Paolo Sommariva or Stefan Oberender in its case-in-chief, and the court expected the parties to reasonably accommodate those witnesses’ schedules.
Motions in limine
A motion in limine is a request to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be used.
• FL3XX’s first motion in limine, Docket No. 100: The court granted the motion. Because neither party designated an expert witness, the court excluded expert evidence. The court stated that this ruling did not necessarily prevent a lay witness from testifying about damages suffered by the company for which the witness works.
• FL3XX’s second motion in limine, Docket No. 101: The court deemed the motion moot. The motion sought to exclude untimely disclosures, but FL3XX identified only three specific exhibits raising that issue, and the court addressed those objections separately.
• Stellar’s motion in limine, Docket No. 103: The court denied in part and deferred in part the motion. It denied the motion as to Exhibits 220–26, finding that admitting the summaries would not prejudice Stellar because they were based on Stellar’s own documents. The court deferred ruling on evidence concerning time FL3XX employees allegedly spent addressing Stellar’s deficiencies or improprieties because FL3XX had not submitted documentary evidence supporting those claimed damages.
Exhibit rulings
The court overruled objections to Stellar’s Exhibits 138 and 158. It allowed Exhibit 138 for Stellar’s asserted purpose of showing its performance before FL3XX terminated the RRA, rather than for proving damages. It allowed Exhibit 158 for Stellar’s asserted purpose of showing a joint commitment between the parties, rather than for proving damages.
The court deferred ruling on Stellar’s Exhibit 159. It indicated that it was more inclined to admit the email’s narrative portion concerning the qualitative impact of the RRA’s termination, but less inclined to admit the attachment for showing the termination’s quantitative impact.
The court also ruled that parties should identify in their exhibit lists materials that could reasonably be needed at trial, including materials that might be used only for impeachment. An exhibit still must be offered during trial for the court to consider it part of the record, even if the parties have agreed about authenticity or admissibility.
Other matters
The court discussed the damages cap and damages-exclusion provisions in the parties’ agreements, the relationship between the MSAA and the RRA, and an alleged breach of the MSAA’s mediation provision. The order records FL3XX’s position that the MSAA’s damages-exclusion clause does not bar compensatory damages for tort claims. The court urged the parties to settle.
Disposition
The order grants FL3XX’s first motion in limine, deems FL3XX’s second motion in limine moot, denies in part and defers in part Stellar’s motion in limine, overrules some exhibit objections, and defers another exhibit ruling. It is a pretrial and evidence order, not a decision on the merits.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.