Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 19STCV19669, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV19669 Hearing Date: June 11, 2025 Dept: 37
Eisenberg
v. McQueen Hearing Date: 7/16/2024
&
6/11/2025
(19STCV19669)
Motions in Limine Rulings
The Court gave
tentative rulings on the parties’ motions in limine (“MILs”) at the Final
Status Conference on July 16, 2024.
After hearing argument from counsel, the Court gave Defendants an
opportunity to file supplemental briefs on Plaintiff’s MILs by July 23, 2024,
to which Plaintiff responded by July 30, 2024.
With the
death of Defendant Chad McQueen on September 11, 2024, the Court vacated the
September 30, 2024, jury trial. The parties
will appear before the Court again on June 11, 2025, for a Trial Setting.
Having
considered the MILs, the arguments of counsel, the supplemental briefing, and
all the matters or record, the Court now rules on the motions in limine as
follows:
I.
Plaintiff’s
Motions in Limine:
1.
To Exclude Evidence of Loren Jane’s
Character and Alleged Bad Acts
With MIL
No. 1, Plaintiff seeks an order excluding evidence of Loren Janes’ character
and alleged bad acts. The Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 in part and DENIES the Motion in
part as explained below.
Evidence
that describes Mr. Janes’ character as an exaggerator or a liar may not be used
as evidence as to whether he also lied about receiving McQueen’s watch. (Evid.
Code § 1101(1) [“evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her
character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or
evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when
offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.”])
The Court
GRANTS the Motion with respect to evidence that Mr. Janes exaggerated the stunts
he performed in McQueen’s movies to prove that he stretched the truth about
receiving McQueen’s watch. Evidence
about Mr. Janes “tall tales” from fellow stuntman and third-party witnesses,
such as Stan Barnett, Bobby Foxworth, and John Norris, are excluded.
Defendant
argues that evidence showing Mr. Janes’s pattern of conduct that consistently
misrepresented the truth regarding his stunts in movies with Steve McQueen
should be allowed. The relevant question
here, however, is whether Chad McQueen had knowledge of Janes’ tendency to lie
prior to discrediting the watch and throwing the auction.
The Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 with respect to testimony from Chad
McQueen about his knowledge of Mr. Jane’s character, such as Chad McQueen’s
knowledge of the Matt Lauer interview.
2.
To
Exclude Evidence of Any Investigation into The Provenance of Janes’ Watch After
the Filing of This Action
With MIL
No. 2, Plaintiff seeks an order excluding evidence of Defendants’ investigation
into the provenance of the Janes Watch which occurred after June 5, 2019, the date
this action was filed.
To prove
trade libel, Plaintiff must establish: “1) the defendant published a statement
that tended to disparage the plaintiff’s product or property; 2) the statement
was provably false; 3) the defendant either knew the statement was false or
acted with reckless disregard for its falsity; and 4) the statement caused
actual pecuniary damage.” (ZF Micro
Solutions, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th
992, 1002 n.5.) Plaintiff must also
prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual
malice, meaning the defendant knew the statement was untrue or acted with
reckless disregard of the falsity of the statement. (CACI No. 1731; Melaleuca, Inc. v. Clark
(1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1350.)
Plaintiff
contends that the statement at issue was made in the cease-and-desist letter
written on June 5, 2018, by Arthur Barens.
Mr. Barens wrote: “We do not believe that Mr. McQueen owned the subject watch
and we know of no associate that could confirm the provenance attributed to the
Rolex Submariner. Steve McQueen’s former
wife, Neile Adams, as well as his son, Chad McQueen have made
a comprehensive historic review of the watches that Steve McQueen may have
presented to his friends and have confirmed that Mr. McQueen never gifted the
watch in question to Loren Janes.”
Plaintiff
argues: “Defendants’ liability turns on whether Chad knew or had reason to know
his statement at issue was itself false at the time he made that statement,
irrespective of what Defendants learned in discovery after he made the
statement.” (Pl. MIL No. 2, p. 2.) Plaintiffs also contend that Chad McQueen
refused to withdraw the statement at issue despite demands that he do so
leading up to the filing of this action on June 5, 2019.
The Court
agrees that the jury must decide whether the statement was provably false,
whether defendants either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless
disregard for its falsity, and whether the statement caused actual pecuniary
damage. The Court concludes that what
happened after June 5, 2019, in terms of investigating the provenance of the
watch is not relevant evidence. (Evid.
Code § 352.)
For the
reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s MIL No. 2.
3.
To
Exclude Hearsay Testimony from Stan Barrett Regarding The Purchase Of The Janes
Watch in Hong Kong in the 1960s
With MIL
No. 3, Plaintiff seeks an order excluding hearsay testimony from Stan Barrett
regarding Janes’ alleged purchase of the Janes Watch.
The Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3 and excludes the Janes Hearsay Statements.
Mr. Barrett may testify that he personally saw Janes wearing a Rolex Submariner
in 1968 but Barrett’s testimony as to what Janes told him about the watch is inadmissible
hearsay. (Evid. Code § 1200.)
4.
To
Exclude Testimony Related to Placing the McQueen Photo on Auction Marketing
Materials
With MIL
No. 4, Plaintiff seeks an order excluding testimony regarding former
Cross-Defendant Phillips Auctioneers LLC’s use of a photograph of Steve McQueen
wearing a Rolex Watch in promotional materials for the auction of a Rolex Watch
owned by Loren Janes.
Evidence
related to the auction’s advertising image and the press release is not
relevant to the provenance of the watch.
Moreover, Plaintiff never claimed that the watch in the photo was the Janes
Watch.
Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS the MIL No. 4 in part: such evidence may not be used by
Defendant to argue that Plaintiff and Phillips Auctioneers were trying to
intentionally deceive the public by using the picture. The photo and the text messages between
Plaintiff and Phillips Auctioneers are not relevant to the argument that Chad
knowingly made a true or false statement.
The
advertising image is relevant, however, to Chad McQueen’s initial doubts about
the Janes Watch. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES the MIL No. 4 to the extent that Chad McQueen may testify about whether
he understood the watch in the photo to be the Janes Watch. The Court will give a limiting instruction
that the photo may only be considered for that purpose.
5. To
Exclude Defendant’s Expert, David Hall, From Offering Any Opinion Regarding the
Provenance of The Janes Watch
With MIL No. 5, Plaintiff seeks an order
excluding Defendants’ expert witness, David Hall, from offering any testimony
or opinion regarding the provenance of the Janes Watch.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants did not
indicate that expert witness David Hall would give expert opinion regarding the
provenance of the Janes Watch, that the Janes Watch was never sold to Steve
McQueen, or that Steve McQueen never owned or had a photograph taken or a film
made where he was wearing the Janes Watch.
However, Defendants’ expert witness designation states that Hall would
render testimony based on his review of records related to the Janes
Watch.
Hall’s opinions given at his March 27,
2024, deposition are consistent with that designation. [Deposition, pp. 59-60.] For example, Hall testified: “my opinion of
the watch is that if it was sold to who you think it was, that they would
record it…”; “there is no record of Mr. McQueen owning or having – in photo or
film or anything having a Rolex ever in his possession before – in 1964 or ‘5”;
and “the fact is that it is not registered by Rolex under his name….” These
opinions are based on documents that Hall reviewed in preparation for giving his
deposition testimony.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to
the extent that Mr. Hall may not offer any testimony or opinion regarding the
provenance of the Janes Watch and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to the extent that Mr.
Hall may testify regarding his review of records related to the Janes
Watch.
6. To
Preclude Cumulative Irrelevant Witness Testimony
With MIL No.
6, Plaintiff seeks an order precluding Defendants from offering, introducing,
or admitting cumulative, irrelevant witness testimony. “Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the
Court preclude testimony from Clifford Coleman, John Norris, Matt Robinson,
Robert Foxworth, Diamond Farnsworth, Stan Barrett, and Matt Stone (the “McQueen
Non-Party Witnesses”).” (Pl. MIL No. 2,
p.2.)
Defendants argue that Plaintiff
“cherry-picked” portions of the depositions that only addressed (1) witnesses
never hearing the story of McQueen gifting the watch; and (2) how Janes was not
the “best damn stuntman in the world,” to make the testimony appear repetitive
and cumulative in violation of Evidence Code 352. Plaintiffs contend that each
witness serves a different purpose, including being a percipient witness to
Janes wearing the Rolex Submariner and rebutting Plaintiff’s expert testimony,
trial witness Doc Duhame, and the provenance letter.
The Court
denies this Motion in Limine without prejudice.
Some of the testimony of the McQueen Non-Party Witnesses may indeed be
cumulative, but the Court will wait to rule on specific objections made during
trial.
II.
Defendant’s
Motions in Limine:
1. To
Exclude Hearsay Statements of Plaintiff and Witnesses Purporting to Verify the
Provenance Attributed to the Loren Janes Rolex
With Defendants’ MIL No. 1, Defendants seek to exclude all
hearsay statements of Plaintiff and witnesses purporting to verify the
authenticity of the provenance attributed to the Janes Watch. Defendants
list a “non-exhaustive list [which] highlights the extensive nature of hearsay
statements in this case.” (Def. MIL No.
1, p.6.)
The Court denies without prejudice Defendants’ Motion in
Limine No. 1 with respect to unidentified statements.
With respect to the 17 identified statements, the Court rules
as follows:
A. Paul
Boutros 11/22/2021 Declaration:
Defendants move to exclude statements made in ¶¶ 4, 5, 7
(the language “documenting the Submariner’s provenance” and “documenting the
restoration of the Submariner”), 11 (third sentence only), 12 (the language “in
which the author noted that Janes was wearing the engraved Submariner during
the interview”) 17 (the language “Eisenberg said that Erika Janes had told him
that it was sometime in the 1970’s”), 20, 28, and 29 of the Paul Boutros
Declaration of November 22, 2021. The
Court rules as follows:
¶4: Plaintiff
may not use the language in ¶4 identified by Defendants to prove the provenance
of the watch, but only “to show why and how Mr. Boutros was introduced to Plaintiff
in the first place, and background concerning the proposed business venture
which Eisenberg was seeking to do with Phillips Auctioneers, LLC.” (Pl. Opp. to Def. MIL No.1, p.5.) The court will give a limiting instruction
that the testimony may only be considered for that purpose.
¶5:
The court will exclude as hearsay the language in ¶5 identified by
Defendants regarding what Erika Janes told Eisenberg.
¶7:
The language in ¶7 identified by Defendants is not hearsay.
¶11:
The language identified in ¶11 by Defendants may not be used to prove
the provenance of the watch but may be used to describe the research Mr.
Boutros performed to learn about Mr. Janes and the effect that research had on Mr.
Boutros’s belief that Mr. Janes and Mr. McQueen worked together over the years
and were friends. This information is
relevant to explain Mr. Boutros’s act in agreeing to accept the Watch on
consignment for auction. (Evid. Code §
1250(a)(2).)
¶12:
The Court will exclude the language in ¶12 identified by Defendants as
hearsay.
¶17:
The first sentence in ¶7 identified by Defendants is not hearsay; the
second sentence will be excluded as hearsay.
¶20: “In the press release, Phillips
described the Submariner as having been given by McQueen to his stuntman Loren
Janes.” The Court concludes this
statement is not an out-of-court statement being offered to prove that Mr.
McQueen gave Mr. Janes the Watch, but what Phillips represented to the public to
auction the watch.
B. Marshall
Terrill Statement
Mr. Terrill’s statement is excluded as inadmissible
hearsay. The statement is not signed
under oath.
C. 10/31/2019
Declaration of Eisenberg
D. 12/22/2020
Declaration of Gary Combs, ¶ 3.
The Court excludes the evidence of what Combs heard from
other stuntman as inadmissible hearsay.
The Court does not view the language in the Combs declaration identified
by Defendants as reputation evidence.
(Evid. Code § 1324.)
E. 11/13/2019
Declaration of Ronald Duhane, ¶ 4.
The Court excludes as hearsay Mr. Duhane’s statements
regarding comments he heard Steve McQueen and Mr. Janes make during a lunch on
set of the film “The Hunter” regarding the filming of “The Sand Pebbles,” in
which Mr. James served as Mr. McQueen’s stunt double, and regarding McQueen’s
gift to Janes of a Rolex Watch.
F. 10/10/23
Declaration of Alessandro Ciani, ¶3.
The Court denies the motion as to this statement of Mr.
Ciani. As a non-retained expert, he may
rely upon hearsay. Evid. Code §§ 801, 802.
G. 11/3/2023
Declaration of Mo Stojnovic
Mo Stojnovic is not on the witness list and counsel
indicated he will not testify at trial.
H. Jake
Erlich
Plaintiff will need to lay a proper foundation for the
designated testimony – “the watch in controversy was indeed an authentic Rolex
Submariner that was gifted by Steve McQueen to Loren Janes” -- to be admitted.
I. Erika
Janes
Plaintiff will need to lay a proper foundation for the
designated testimony – “Loren Janes owned a Rolex Submariner watch gifted to
him by the late actor, Steve McQueen, which was inscribed with a message that
read, “Loren The Best Damn Stuntman in the World Steve.” – to be admitted.
2. To
Exclude Speculative and Unreliable Testimony on Monetary Damages
With MIL No. 2, Defendants seek an order excluding evidence
regarding “speculative, hearsay, and unreliable testimony on monetary damages
including, but not limited to, what would have been paid for the Loren Janes
Rolex watch at auction.” (Def. MIl No. 2., pp. 1-2.) The only specific examples of evidence
Defendants seek excluded are the testimony of Robert Maron and a very brief
mention of the testimony of Alessandro Ciani.
The court agrees that Mr. Maron’s testimony regarding his
“client or a friend or an associate” who said he knew someone who was willing
to pay a certain amount for the Watch is hearsay and will be excluded. Any evaluation Mr. Maron might have given the
Watch in October 2018 will require a proper foundation.
Similarly, any testimony Mr. Ciani may give regarding his
evaluation of the Watch in October 2018 will require a proper foundation.
The Court denies this motion without prejudice except for
Mr. Maron’s testimony regarding his “client or a friend or an associate” who
said he knew someone who was willing to pay a certain amount for the Watch,
which the Court will exclude.
3. To
Exclude Any Evidence of Defendant Chad McQueen Purportedly Disputing
the Rolex Auction Because of his Relationship
with Tag Heuer
With MIL No. 3, Defendants seek to exclude evidence and
argument that Chad McQueen disputed the provenance of the Janes Watch because
of his relationship with the watch company, Tag Heurer. The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion in Limine
No. 3.
The Complaint alleges a relationship between Defendants
and Tag Heurer. (Complaint, ¶ 22.) As evidence of the relationship between Defendants
and Tag Heurer is relevant to show the “existence or nonexistence of a bias,
interest, or other motive” (Evid. Code, § 780(f)), the Court DENIES Defendants’
MIL No. 3.
4. To
Exclude Any Evidence of Value and/or Revenue of the Steve McQueen Estate
With MIL No. 4, Defendants seek an order excluding any
evidence of value and/or revenue of the Steve McQueen estate. (Evid. Code § 352.)
The Court GRANTS MIL No. 4, which Plaintiff does not oppose.
5. To
Exclude Letter from Rolex Watch U.S.A to Erika Janes which Purports to Affirm
the Alleged Provenance Attributed to the Loren Janes Rolex
With MIL No. 5, Defendants seek an order excluding the
letter from Rolex Watch U.S.A to Erika Janes “which purports to affirm the alleged
provenance attributed to the Loren Janes Watch.” (Defendants’ MIL No. 5, p.1.)
Plaintiff argues that the Rolex Letter “is not being
offered for the purpose of proving the Janes Watch’s provenance or the truth of
the matter asserted on that subject.”
(Pl. Opp. to Def. MIL No. 5, p.2.)
Rather, the Rolex Letter and the accompanying “Jeweler Invoice” are both
admissible “to prove the restoration, condition, and history of the Janes Watch
leading up to the auction.” (Id.)
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ MIL No. 5 to the extent the Letter
purports to affirm the alleged provenance attributed to the Janes Watch and DENIES
the MIL No. 5 to the extent that the Rolex Letter (and/or the Jeweler Invoice) is
offered to prove the restoration, condition, and history of the Janes Watch
leading up to the auction. The Court
will give a limiting instruction that the testimony may only be considered for
that purpose.
6. To Exclude Speculative, Unreliable, Hearsay
Statements of Plaintiff’s Non-Retained Expert Witness James Udel Purporting to
Verify the Authenticity of the provenance Attributed to the Janes Watch.
With MIL No. 6, Defendants seek an order “to exclude
speculative, unreliable, hearsay statements of plaintiff’s non-retained expert
witness James Udel purporting to verify the authenticity of the provenance
attributed to the Loren Janes Rolex.”
(Defendants’ MIL No. 6, p.2.)
Plaintiff represents, however, that he does not intend to
offer Mr. Udel’s opinion as to the provenance or authenticity of the Jane
Watch. (Pl. Opp. to Def. MIL No. 6,
p.3.) Instead, Plaintiff argues that he has
designated Mr. Udel as an expert witness who will offer his opinions to the
following: “1) the relationship between the late actor, Steve McQueen, and his
stuntman, Loren Janes; 2) his research described in his book entitled, ‘Doubling
for McQueen & Redford: The Stunt Careers of Loren Janes and Mickey Gilbert’
(2021); and 3) the film careers of the late actor, Steve McQueen, and his
stuntman, Loren Janes.” (Pl. Opp. to
Def. MIL No. 6, p.3 [citation omitted].)
Plaintiff also states that Mr. Udel may testify “regarding his
interactions with Mr. Janes and his personal observation of the Janes Watch –
specifically, that he met Mr. Janes in person and that he saw the Janes
Watch.” (Id.)
As Plaintiff does not intend to offer Mr. Udel’s opinion
as to the provenance or authenticity of the Jane Watch, the Court GRANTS Defendants’
Motion in Limine No. 6.