However, no such opportunity presented itself here, so any reference to policies or procedures concerning hospitalization for alcohol withdrawal lacks foundation, is irrelevant, and would cause jury confusion and waste time. See Fed. R. Evid. 104, 401, 402, 403. 107 1804815.

at 55:19-56:14.) In short, Mr. Blankenhorn has no expertise in any relevant academic field and is not qualified to serve as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 104. 2.

Here, plaintiffs and Tarr violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, in particular, violated FRCP(a)(2)(D)(ii)'s 30-day deadline. Plaintiffs did not cite any authority at all for their incorrect assertion that FRE 104(a) or any other rule rescues expert opinions that violate FRCP 26(a) and that should be excluded as a sanction under FRCP 37(c)(1)'s "automatic sanction." See FRCP 2 Whether or not Tarr's untimely opinions are excluded - they should be - plaintiffs should be ordered immediately to pay defendants for the attorney and expert fees and expenses incurred in responding to Tarr's December 28,2011 report and January 20, 2012 affidavit, and in connection with this motion practice.

Whatever “competent” means, it cannot mean “admissible” because courts are “not bound by evidence Rules” when determining whether the crime-fraud exception applies. Fed. R. Evid. 104(a). In fact, the Supreme Court has held that the exception can be established “using any relevant evidence, lawfully obtained, that has not been adjudicated to be privileged,” including the disputed documents.

The relevance of these records “depend[] on whether [they were delivered],” and the County has not offered any proof “sufficient to support a finding” that these records were actually delivered to the court in 1990. See Fed. R. Evid. 104(b). 6 CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court should reject the County’s reliance on the ancient documents rules and grant Mr. Bozella’s motions in limine.

Case4:05-cv-00037-YGR Document822 Filed10/14/14 Page14 of 16 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 10 APPLE’S MILS 4, 5, & 6 C 05-00037 YGR MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE CONCERNING STEVE JOBS’S CHARACTER Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 104(a), 401, 402, 403, and 701, Apple moves to exclude inflammatory argument, evidence, and hearsay testimony concerning the character of Apple’s late CEO, Steve Jobs.7 As a public figure, Mr. Jobs was the subject of many articles, books (including a biography by Walter Isaacson), and blog posts, many of which purport to depict Mr. Jobs, his leadership style, and his personality.8

Id. at 592 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 104(a)). Rule 702 “assign[s] to the trial judge the task of ens uring that an expert’s testim ony both rests on a reliable foundation and is rele vant to the task at hand.”

Kumho Tire Co., 526 US at 152. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs request that the Court strike the report of Angela E. Watson pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 104(a), 702, and 403 because she is unqualified, the report is irrelevant, and her methods are unreliable and biased. The report confuses the issues while causing unfair prejudice.

The only relevant factors that I found warranted some mitigation of damages was the fact that White did not make any profit from his infringement, that he had no prior record of infringement, and that he could not be solely responsible for the large amount of damages that Malibu had suffered as detailed above. Case 2:12-cv-02078-MMB Document 203 Filed 06/18/13 Page 14 of 15 15 As many judges in copyright cases automatically begin with the minimum amount of statutory damages, $750 per infringement, and then treble that amount to note that the defendant committed a serious tort, I followed this practice. However, in this case, because of Bryan White’s having perjured himself at the Rule 104 hearing and having taken steps to destroy and conceal evidence, a further substantial award of damages was necessary. In a criminal case, this conduct would be denominated as obstruction of justice.

Case 1:01-cv-03014-GBD Document 284 Filed 03/16/13 Page 20 of 33 - 14 -    III. ALLEN SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING TO HER ILLUSTRATIVE COMPUTATION OF CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ STOCK DAMAGES A. The Applicable Legal Standards Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) requires courts to rule upon “preliminary questions concerning … the admissibility of evidence,” including the admissibility of expert opinion evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 104(a). “The burden of establishing the admissibility of the proffered expert testimony weighs on the proponent of that testimony.”