Wilson v. Aargon Agency, Inc.
2:07-cv-00616
D. Nev.Nov 13, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Brian Wilson moved in limine seeking to exclude defendants’ policy/procedure manuals (2006–2008) and other evidence; defendants Aargon Agency, Inc. and Duane Christy opposed.
- Plaintiff contends hard-copy manuals were shredded after discovery requests and Christy admitted instructing staff to destroy hard copies, leaving only electronic versions.
- Defendants assert they produced hundreds of pages of manuals and only older hard copies were destroyed; they intend to offer electronic printouts.
- Plaintiff also sought to preclude arguments requiring piercing Aargon’s corporate veil to hold Christy liable, to bar evidence contradicting jointly admitted facts, to exclude arguments about financial impact of a verdict on defendants, to exclude settlement evidence, and to bar undisclosed evidence.
- Court evaluated admissibility under the best-evidence rule and Rule 1001–1002, considered Ninth Circuit guidance on individual FDCPA liability, and applied the parties’ Joint Pretrial Order and Rules 16/37 constraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Aargon collection manuals (best-evidence) | Manuals were destroyed after discovery; printouts without originals violate best-evidence rule | Produced many manuals; printouts of electronic records are originals if shown to reflect data accurately | Grant in part: defendants may offer printouts only after an outside-the-jury proffer showing printouts accurately reflect the electronic data for the relevant period |
| Personal liability of Duane Christy under FDCPA (alter-ego / veil piercing) | Jury should not be instructed that Christy must be proven to be alter ego; plaintiff opposes burden-shifting | Defendants imply veil-piercing requirement or argue corporate separation matters | Denied in part / deferred: court will not decide as a limine issue; will determine whether Christy is personally liable based on his own acts before addressing alter-ego question |
| Evidence contradicting admitted or uncontroverted facts | Seek exclusion of testimony/argument that contradicts facts in Joint Pretrial Order | Defendants might attempt to introduce contrary evidence | Granted: Pretrial Order controls trial; parties bound by stipulations; such contradictory evidence excluded |
| Argument about financial repercussions to defendants if plaintiff prevails | Financial impact on defendants is irrelevant and prejudicial | Defendants suggested barring evidence of financial impact for any party | Granted as to defendants: evidence/argument about impact of verdict on defendants excluded; evidence about plaintiff’s financial condition remains admissible for damages |
| Settlement negotiations | Settlement discussions are inadmissible | Agreement to exclude | Granted: excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 408 |
| Undisclosed evidence | Evidence not disclosed per Rules 16/37 should be barred | — | Granted: undisclosed evidence precluded under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and local rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663 (7th Cir.) (district courts have broad discretion on motions in limine)
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (ruling on motions in limine may be altered as trial develops)
- Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd., 808 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir.) (best-evidence rule requires originals for writings)
- Cruz v. International Collection Corp., 673 F.3d 991 (9th Cir.) (two-step FDCPA individual-liability framework)
- Kistner v. Law Offices of Michael P. Margelefsky, LLC, 518 F.3d 433 (6th Cir.) (individual liability without veil-piercing may be possible)
- Pettit v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., 211 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir.) (corporate employees/shareholders not necessarily debt collectors absent veil piercing)