Free Order on Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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 A Final P ret rial Conference was held on August 19, 2005. behalf of Plaintiff, Defendants, and Third-Party Defendants. written submissions and the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Trial in this matter shall begin on October 11, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. Trial shall Counsel appeared on vs. Group Vision International, L.L.C., et al., Defendants. Awareness Corporation, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-03-2024-PHX-DGC ORDER IN THE UNITED S TATES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DIS TRICT OF ARIZONA

On the basis of the parties'

last eight days (October 11-12, 14, and 17-21). Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants shall be allotted 19 hours of trial time, the Individual Defendants shall be allotted 19 hours of trial time, and Defendant Group Vision International shall be allotted 10 hours of trial time. The Court will keep track of each parties' time. Opening and closing s t at ements, direct

examination, and cross-examination shall be counted against the parties' allotted time. 2. 3. The case will be tried to the Court. The parties' proposed final pretrial order shall govern the p resentation of Evidence and objections not identified in the Order shall

evidence and ot her t rial issues.

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

Document 388

Filed 08/23/2005

Page 1 of 3

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

not be available at trial, except that the Court will permit the parties to submit amended pages 123 and 124 to correct errors made in the Final Pretrial Order. 4. Awareness Corporation's M otion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Certain

Irrelevant Evidence at Trial (Doc. #369) is denied. Awareness can object at trial to evidence it considers irrelevant. 5. Awareness Corporation's M otion in Limine No. 2 t o Exclude General

Evidence and T es timony Regarding the Use and Effect of the Ingredients Senna and Wormwood (Doc. #370) is denied. Objections to this material can be made at trial. 6. Awareness Corporation's M ot ion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude the Testimony

of Cert ain Witnesses with no Relevant Knowledge at Trial (Doc. #371) is denied. Relevancy objections can be made at trial. 7. Awareness Corporat ion's M otion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude the Deposition

Testimony of Dr. Barbara Timmermann and t o Compel her Attendance at Trial, or to Permit Awareness to Conduct a Trial Deposition (Doc. #372) is denied. Awarenes s knew at the beginning of Dr. Timmermann's deposition that she would be unavailable after July 2005 and had ample opportunity to question her during the deposition. 8. The Individual Defendants' M otion in Limine (Doc. #373), which s ought to

exclude Exhibits 194 and 195 and s ought other sanctions against Awareness and its counsel, is denied. The Court's reasons for denying the motion were stated on the record. The Court also denied Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees on this motion. 9. Awareness Corporation's M otion to Exclude Opinions of John J. Gorman

(Doc. #377) is denied. Plaintiff can make objections at trial. 10. The Court discussed with the p arties the prospect of reconvening the The parties agreed w it h this

settlement conference before M agistrate Judge Duncan. suggestion.

The Court's staff will contact Judge Duncan and reques t that he schedule a

continuation of the settlement conference as soon as reasonably possible.

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

Document 388

-2Filed 08/23/2005

Page 2 of 3

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

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

Document 388

-3Filed 08/23/2005

Page 3 of 3