Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC

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
United States District
 Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL DEVIN FLOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.
SABER FITNESS HEGENBERGER, LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-01278-TSH
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
IN LIMINE
Re: Dkt. No. 149
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Michael Devin Floyd, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint for civil rights
violations and contract claims against Defendant Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC (“Saber”),
alleging that Saber improperly terminated Floyd’s gym membership. ECF No. 52 (Third
Amended Complaint). The case is set to proceed to a bench trial on January 12, 2026. ECF No.
135. Pending before the Court are fourteen motions in limine from Floyd. ECF No. 149. The
Court heard oral argument at the parties’ pretrial conference on November 13, 2025. Having
considered the parties’ arguments, the Court rules as follows.1
II. BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are well known to the parties, and the Court has previously
summarized this case’s background in its summary judgment order. ECF No. 119; see Floyd v.
Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC, No. 24-cv-01278-TSH, 2025 WL 2173413 (N.D. Cal. July 31,
2025). The Court incorporates by reference the factual background set forth therein.
Five claims will proceed to a bench trial on January 12, 2026. ECF Nos. 135, 151, 155. In
1 The parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF Nos.
16, 29, 36.
Case 3:24-cv-01278-TSH Document 166 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 12

2
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
preparation for the upcoming trial, Floyd filed fourteen motions in limine on October 23, 2025.
ECF No. 149 (“Mot.”). On October 30, 2025, Saber filed an Opposition. ECF No. 161 (“Opp.”).
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Motions In Limine
Motions in limine are a “procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence
in a particular area.” United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009). Like other
pretrial motions, motions in limine are “useful tools to resolve issues which would otherwise
clutter up the trial.” City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017).
Accordingly, “a ruling on a motion in limine is essentially a preliminary opinion that falls entirely
within the discretion of the district court.” Id.; see Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4
(1984) (explaining that a court may rule in limine “pursuant to the district court’s inherent
authority to manage the course of trials”). However, “[a] motion in limine is not the proper
vehicle for seeking a dispositive ruling on a claim, particularly after the deadline for filing such
motions has passed.” Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank, 735 F.3d 1158, 1162 n.4 (9th Cir. 2013).
In many instances, rulings “should be deferred until trial, so that questions of foundation,
relevancy, and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.” United States v. Pac. Gas
& Elec. Co., 178 F. Supp. 3d 927, 941 (N.D. Cal. 2016). For example, in order to exclude
evidence on a motion in limine, “the evidence must be inadmissible on all potential grounds.”
McConnell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 995 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1167 (D. Nev. 2014). Thus, denial of
a motion in limine to exclude certain evidence does not mean that all evidence contemplated by
the motion will be admitted, only that the court is unable to make a comprehensive ruling in
advance of trial. Id. Moreover, even if a district court does rule in limine, the court may “change
its ruling at trial because testimony may bring facts to the district court’s attention that it did not
anticipate at the time of its initial ruling.” City of Pomona, 866 F.3d at 1070; see also Ohler v.
United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000) (“[I]n limine rulings are not binding on the trial judge,
and the judge may always change his mind during the course of a trial.”).
IV. DISCUSSION
Floyd brings fourteen Motions in Limine, requesting that the Court exclude several exhibits
Case 3:24-cv-01278-TSH Document 166 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 12

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
and witnesses’ testimony that Saber plans to present at trial. See generally Mot.
As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Floyd’s numerous arguments under Federal
Rules of Evidence 403 are “inapplicable here because this action will be tried in a bench trial.”
United States v. De Anda, No. 18-cr-00538-TSH, 2019 WL 2863602, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 2,
2019) (citing E.E.O.C. v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 898 (9th Cir. 1994) (risk that a verdict
will be affected unfairly and substantially by the admission of evidence is far less in a bench
trial)); see Houston v. Country Coach, Inc., No. C-07-00859-HRL, 2008 WL 926595, at *2–3
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2008) (denying Rule 403 objection because “given the narrow scope and the
fact that the case [is] proceeding as a bench trial, the concerns of undue prejudice are not
warranted”). Therefore, the Court does not address Floyd’s Rule 403 arguments below.2
A. Motion In Limine No. 1
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude the testimony of Cecilia Newman at trial on the
grounds that it is not relevant, is improper character evidence, is hearsay, lacks foundation, and is
unfairly prejudicial. Mot. at 1:17–3:6. Saber contends that Newman’s testimony is relevant, not
hearsay, and admissible under Rule 403.3 Opp. at 2:1–3:11.
Here, the Court finds that Newman’s proposed testimony concerning her and her
franchise’s experiences with Floyd is conditionally relevant if Saber can show that it was aware of
this information prior to the time it terminated Floyd’s gym membership. See Fed. R. Evid.
104(b). Saber states that its “decision to terminate [Floyd’s] gym membership at Saber Fitness
Hegenberger was based in part on information obtained from Newman.” Opp. at 2:7–17. If that is
true, then evidence that Newman had knowledge “concerning her and her franchise’s experiences
with [Floyd]” makes it more probable that Saber terminated Floyd’s membership based on
Newman’s information, and thus it is relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 401. The Court is not admitting this
2 This order assumes that the January trial will be a bench trial because the parties seemed to
assume that as well in ECF No. 58. Because Floyd demanded a jury trial, and the parties have not
yet stipulated to a nonjury trial, the Court directed them to file such a stipulation if they want to
have a bench trial. ECF No. 163.
3 The Court addresses Saber’s arguments regarding the Newman Email (Saber’s Trial Ex. A)
below under Motion in Limine No. 2.
Case 3:24-cv-01278-TSH Document 166 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 12

4
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
testimony as evidence of Floyd’s character, i.e., that if he behaved poorly in a previous gym
membership, then it is likely he behaved poorly in this gym membership. Rather, Floyd’s first
claim for relief is for unlawful discrimination, which means that Saber’s reasons for terminating
his gym membership are relevant – indeed, they are essentially the core of the claim – so what
Saber knew about Floyd’s prior conduct matters. This evidence is admissible for the non-hearsay
purpose of its effect on the listener.
Further, the Court agrees with Saber that “Newman’s testimony is relevant to [Floyd’s]
claim of damages.” Opp. at 2:18–21. Saber asserts that “Newman’s testimony will illustrate that
in the same year, [Floyd] was terminated from another gym, which could have contributed to any
alleged emotional distress.” Id. Floyd also seeks damages for the cost and inconvenience of
going to another gym, so his termination from another gym is relevant to whether his claimed
damages are caused by Saber’s actions.
Saber also asserts that it will use the “Custodian of Records of Planet Fitness West” to
“establish the proper foundation for the admissibility of Newman’s prior statements.” Id. The
Court expresses no view on that argument here but will wait to see what foundation is laid at trial.4
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 1.
B. Motion In Limine No. 2
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude all communications regarding Cecilia
Newman, including those in Exhibit 2, on the grounds that they are not relevant, are improper
character evidence, are hearsay, and are unfairly prejudicial. Mot. at 3:7–4:4. The document
referred to as “Exhibit 2” by Floyd corresponds to Saber’s Trial Exhibit A; it is an email dated
September 9, 2021, from Newman. See Saber’s Pretrial Statement at 7; Floyd’s Objections at 6;
Floyd’s Ex. 2 (ECF No. 150-2) (the “Newman Email”). Saber contends this evidence is “relevant,
admissible as non-hearsay and as exceptions to the hearsay rule, and not subject to exclusion under
4 At the Pretrial Conference, Saber asked the Court to defer ruling on whether Newman’s
testimony and the Newman Email (discussed below) can be considered for their truth as Saber
plans on establishing a foundation at trial through a Custodian of Records. As discussed at the
Conference, the Court expresses no view on whether the evidence can be considered for its truth
but will wait to see what foundation is laid at trial.
Case 3:24-cv-01278-TSH Document 166 Filed 11/13/25 Page 4 of 12

5
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
FRE 403.” Opp. at 3:12–18.
Here, the Court confines its discussion to Saber’s Trial Exhibit A (Newman Email) as that
is what the parties focus on in their papers. The Newman Email states:
The below member, Michael Floyd needs to be canceled right away!!
I have tried to get in contact with th [sic] local group with no help.
No Manager at the club, the area Director Katie Huff passed me along
to a Jake Saltzman but still haven’t heard back from him. I reached
out again this morning with no luck again. This member has now
been kicked out of both our Fremont and Hayward locations for not
wearing a mask, sexual harrasing [sic] female members and
employees, causing issues with male members, yelling and causing a
sceen [sic] on the gym floor, staying for hours on end and having to
be asked to leave at closing time. I dealt with him persoannly [sic]
last Thursday in Fremont and told him his behavior was not Ok and
that it would not be tolerated in our gyms. He came back over the
weekend and the staff had the same issue. Security was called and
was unable to get him out of the club and they had to call the local
PD, who after several hours were able to get him to leave. Then he
made his way to our Hayward club and caused the same issues. This
man is very aggressive and needs to be canceled by his home club
ASAP so he can’t keep getting access to other locations with only a
‘Welcome’ note on his home screen. I have included Lauren from the
Saber Group to alert her but not sure who we can contact now for the
local Corporate loactions [sic] as Francisco is gone. That contact
would be very helpful since we are sharing so many areas now and
need to have contact with someone in charge of those clubs. This is
becoming a very large issues [sic] and I really think things need to be
changed with the recepricol [sic] access members so notes can be seen
that were made the home club. As well as us being able to note if we
have issues with the member. This needs to be addressses [sic] at the
Corporate level right away.
Newman Email (emphasis in original).
For the reasons discussed in Motion in Limine No. 1, the Court finds that the Newman
Email is conditionally relevant to Saber’s reasons for terminating Floyd’s gym membership,
provided Saber can show it was aware of the email.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 2 with respect to the
Newman Email (Saber’s Tr. Ex. A).
C. Motion In Limine No. 3
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude the testimony of Majenta Maldonado at trial
under the “missing witness rule.” Mot. at 4:5–5:14. Saber contends that Maldonado’s testimony
is “relevant as [Saber] relied, in part, on Maldonado’s notation in its decision to terminate
Case 3:24-cv-01278-TSH Document 166 Filed 11/13/25 Page 5 of 12

6
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
[Floyd’s] membership,” and that Floyd’s objection regarding the “missing witness rule” “is not
legally cognizable.” Opp. at 3:19–4:9.
“The term, ‘missing witness instruction,’ refers to an instruction that permits a jury to draw
an adverse inference from a party’s failure to call a witness.” United States v. Crawford, 142 F.
App’x 295, 296 (9th Cir. 2005). To obtain such an instruction, a party must first establish “that
the missing witness was peculiarly within the adversary’s power to produce” by “showing either
that the witness is physically available only to the opponent or that the witness has the type of
relationship with the opposing party that pragmatically renders his testimony unavailable to the
opposing party.” Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 3536797,
at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2012) (cleaned up). “A missing witness instruction is proper only if
from all the circumstances an inference of unfavorable testimony from an absent witness is a
natural and reasonable one.” United States v. Bramble, 680 F.2d 590, 592 (9th Cir. 1982) (cleaned
up).
Here, the Court agrees with Saber that the missing witness is inapplicable to Maldonado.
Opp. at 3:26–28. Saber has not failed to call Maldonado as a witness; to the contrary, Saber lists
Maldonado as a witness for trial. Saber’s Pretrial Statement at 4. Therefore, because Maldonado
does not constitute an “absent witness,” the missing witness rule does not apply. Bramble, 680
F.2d at 592.
Floyd contends that Maldonado should be barred from testifying essentially as a sanction
for Saber not identifying in discovery the witness Maldonado said Floyd was harassing, which
witness Floyd believes would impeach Maldonado’s anticipated testimony. However, Floyd has
not shown that this information was available to Saber in discovery, or that the failure to provide it
was somehow a breach of Saber’s discovery obligations.
Floyd further argues that the Court should exclude Maldonado’s testimony because she
wrote account notes on days that do not show “recorded check-ins” for Floyd and “she would have
been influenced by [Saber’s] affiliate Romero’s ulterior motive.” Mot. at 5:1–14. But issues of
witness memory, truthfulness, and bias are matters for cross-examination, not grounds to exclude
entire testimony. See Patterson v. McCarthy, 581 F.2d 220, 221 (9th Cir. 1978) (“It is a proper
Case 3:24-cv-01278-TSH Document 166 Filed 11/13/25 Page 6 of 12

7
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
and important function of cross-examination to test the witnesses’ motivation in testifying.”);
Gibbs v. Covello, 996 F.3d 596, 601 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining cross-examination may be used
“to delve into the witness’ story to test the witness’ perceptions and memory”) (cleaned up); Fed.
R. Evid. 607 (“Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s
credibility.”).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 3.
D. Motion In Limine No. 4
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude “all evidence and witness [sic] not disclosed or
produced during discovery” because it “presents an unfairness to [Floyd], as he would not have
any time to counter that evidence or obtain further evidence with respect to the possible late
disclosure.” Mot. at 5:15–19. Saber responds that it “is not aware of any documents or evidence
that has been produced after the close of fact discovery, not otherwise allowed by the Court, that
[Saber] intends to use at trial.” Opp. at 4:10–14. The Court sees nothing to address at this time.
The Court therefore DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 4 without prejudice to Floyd
renewing this objection as to a specific piece of evidence or witness at trial.
E. Motion In Limine No. 5
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude “the mentioning or using claims in other
lawsuits [Floyd] has filed, which are not affiliated with [Saber]” on the grounds that it is improper
character evidence and is unfairly prejudicial. Mot. at 6:1–7:2. Saber contends that the evidence
“is relevant to the issues of [Floyd’s] damages and impeachment.” Opp. at 4:15–28.
Here, the Court agrees with Saber that evidence showing Floyd’s memberships at other
gyms were terminated is relevant because it “cuts against [Floyd’s] contention that [his] economic
and non-economic damages are solely attributable to [Saber].” Id. at 4:20–24. However, there is a
difference between evidence showing that a gym membership was terminated and evidence
showing misconduct leading to such termination. Saber states that “evidence of [Floyd’s]
proclivity for engaging in misconduct at fitness gyms, getting his gym membership cancelled, and
suing gyms on unmeritorious grounds, are relevant as impeachment evidence that illustrate a
litigious pattern and practice against fitness gyms.” Id. at 4:25–27 (emphasis added). But this is
Case 3:24-cv-01278-TSH Document 166 Filed 11/13/25 Page 7 of 12

8
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
exactly what Rule 404 prohibits—Saber cannot use evidence of Floyd’s prior purported
misconduct at and litigation against other gyms to show that he had a tendency toward improper
conduct at gyms. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 5 with the caveat that
Saber may introduce evidence that Floyd had other gym memberships that were terminated as it
relates to Floyd’s claim for damages.
F. Motion In Limine No. 6
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude Exhibit 7 on the grounds that it is not relevant,
is improper character evidence, is hearsay, and is unfairly prejudicial. Mot. at 7:3–8:6. The
document referred to as “Exhibit 7” by Floyd corresponds to Saber’s Trial Exhibit C; it is a
summary of account notes for Floyd’s gym membership with Jax Three gym. See Floyd’s
Objections at 6; Saber’s Pretrial Statement at 7; Floyd’s Ex. 7 (ECF No. 150-7) (the “Jax Three
Notes”). Saber contends that the evidence is “relevant as the notes illustrate [Floyd’s]
inappropriate conduct.” Opp. at 5:1–8.
Here, the Court finds that the Jax Three Notes are conditionally relevant and admissible for
a non-hearsay purpose if Saber can show it was aware of them by the time it terminated his gym
membership. If Saber was aware of repeated complaints about Floyd’s behavior in prior gym
memberships, it is less likely that the true reason for terminating his Saber membership was race
discrimination.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 6 to exclude the Jax Three
Notes (Saber’s Tr. Ex. C).
G. Motion In Limine No. 7
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude “all mentioning of disputes within gym
memberships prior to [Saber’s] membership,” on the grounds that it is not relevant, is improper
character evidence, is hearsay, and is unfairly prejudicial. Mot. at 8:7–13. Saber contends that the
evidence is relevant because “(1) [Saber] relied on [Floyd’s] conduct at other gyms when it made
the decision to terminate [Floyd’s] membership; and (2) [Floyd’s] disputes with past gyms impact
his economic and emotional distress damages.” Opp. at 5:10–16.
Case 3:24-cv-01278-TSH Document 166 Filed 11/13/25 Page 8 of 12

9
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
As discussed above, evidence of policy infractions during prior gym memberships is
conditionally relevant and non-hearsay if Saber can show it was aware of those incidents by the
time it terminated Floyd’s gym membership. Further, evidence showing Floyd’s memberships at
other gyms were terminated is relevant to his claim for damages. Opp. at 5:10–16; Fed. R.
Evid. 401.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 7.
H. Motion In Limine No. 8
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude “[a]ll mentioning of disputes within gym
memberships after [Saber’s] membership” on the grounds that it is not relevant, is improper
character evidence, and is unfairly prejudicial. Mot. at 8:14–9:13. Saber contends that this
evidence is “relevant to [Floyd’s] damages,” and that “these disputes are essential for [Saber’s]
defense to [Floyd’s] damages.” Opp. at 5:17–27.
Here, as discussed above, the Court agrees with Saber that that evidence showing Floyd’s
memberships at other gyms were terminated is relevant to Floyd’s claim for damages. Opp. at
5:17–27; Fed. R. Evid. 401. Having said that, it’s just the gym membership terminations that are
relevant. Evidence of what lead to those terminations is not relevant, as Saber had no knowledge
of those events at the time it terminated Floyd’s gym membership. 5
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 8 with the guidance
expressed above.
I. Motion In Limine No. 9
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude the testimony of Sabrina Fernandez at trial
under the “missing witness rule.” Mot. at 9:14–10:19. Saber contends that Fernandez’s testimony
5 At the Pretrial Conference, Saber argued that the reasons leading up to Floyd’s termination at
other gyms—post Floyd’s termination at Saber’s gym—are relevant to Floyd’s claim for
emotional distress because the treatment he received at other gyms could be an alternative source
of his emotional distress. As discussed at the Conference, for terminations occurring after Saber’s
termination, Saber may only introduce evidence of the fact of these terminations. However, if
Floyd opens the door at trial by testifying about his emotional distress in a way that broadly
implicates, or could implicate, his experiences being expelled from other gyms, that could justify
the admission of evidence concerning his negative experiences at other gyms. The Court will wait
to see what Floyd’s testimony is at trial on this issue.
Case 3:24-cv-01278-TSH Document 166 Filed 11/13/25 Page 9 of 12

10
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
is relevant and that Floyd’s objection under the “missing witness rule” is “not legally cognizable.”
Opp. at 6:1–11.
Here, the Court agrees with Saber that the missing witness rule is inapplicable to
Fernandez. Id. at 6:8–11. As discussed above, because Saber plans to call Fernandez as a witness
at trial, she does not constitute an “absent witness,” and the missing witness rule does not apply.
Saber’s Pretrial Statement at 5; see Bramble, 680 F.2d at 592. Further, Floyd has failed to
demonstrate that Saber committed discovery misconduct that would justify excluding Fernandez’s
testimony as a sanction.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 9.
J. Motion In Limine No. 10
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude the testimony of Brian Boucher at trial on the
grounds that it is not relevant, is improper character evidence, is hearsay, lacks foundation, and is
unfairly prejudicial. Mot. at 10:20–12:9. Saber contends that Boucher’s testimony is relevant, not
hearsay, and admissible under Rule 403. Opp. at 6:13–7:9. However, it seems to the Court that
this dispute is moot, as Saber does not list Boucher as a trial witness. See generally Saber’s
Pretrial Statement.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 10.
K. Motion In Limine No. 11
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude all communications regarding Brian Boucher,
including those in Exhibit 2, on the grounds that they are not relevant, are improper character
evidence, are hearsay, lack foundation, and are unfairly prejudicial. Mot. at 12:11–13:8. The
document referred to as “Exhibit 2” by Floyd corresponds to Saber’s Trial Exhibit A; it is an email
dated September 9, 2021, from Boucher. See Saber’s Pretrial Statement at 7; Floyd’s Objections
at 6; Floyd’s Ex. 2 (ECF No. 150-2) (the “Boucher Email”). Saber contends this evidence is
“relevant, admissible as non-hearsay and as exceptions to the hearsay rule, and not subject to
exclusion under FRE 403.” Opp. at 7:10–16.
Here, because Saber does not list Boucher as a trial witness, the Court is concerned that
Saber will not be able to lay a proper foundation for the Boucher Email at trial. See Fed. R. Evid.
Case 3:24-cv-01278-TSH Document 166 Filed 11/13/25 Page 10 of 12

11
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
602; see generally Saber’s Pretrial Statement. At the Pretrial Conference, Saber acknowledged
that it will not call Boucher as a trial witness but argued that it can lay a foundation for the
Boucher Email through a Custodian of Records. The Court expresses no view on that argument
here but will wait to see what foundation is laid at trial.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 11 to exclude the Boucher
Email (Saber’s Tr. Ex. A).
L. Motion In Limine No. 12
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude “[t]he notes within [Saber’s] system, where no
alleged victim was disclosed,” in Exhibit 4 because the evidence was “altered” and “manipulated.”
Mot. at 13:9–14:20. The document referred to as “Exhibit 4” by Floyd corresponds to Saber’s
Trial Exhibit B; it is a summary of account notes for Floyd’s gym membership with Saber. See
Floyd’s Objections at 6; Saber’s Pretrial Statement at 7; Floyd’s Ex. 4 (ECF No. 150-4) (Saber
Account Notes). Saber contends that Floyd’s “objection is not legally cognizable” and that the
“account notes are relevant as they illustrate [Floyd’s] inappropriate conduct.” Opp. at 7:17–26.
Here, the Court finds that the Saber Account Notes are conditionally relevant and non-
hearsay if Saber can show it was aware of them by the time it terminated Floyd’s gym
membership. Floyd has also failed to show that Saber committed discovery misconduct that
warrants excluding this evidence.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 12 to exclude the Saber
Account Notes (Saber’s Tr. Ex. B).
M. Motion In Limine No. 13
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude “any mentioning of the notes within [Saber’s]
system, where no alleged victim was disclosed” because the evidence was “altered” and
“manipulated.” Mot. at 15:1–6. Saber responds that this request should be denied “for the same
reasons outlined in [Saber’s] Opposition to [Floyd’s] Motion in Limine Number 12.” Opp. at 8:1–
5.
Here, as discussed in Motion in Limine No. 12, the Court finds that the Saber Account
Notes are conditionally relevant, and Floyd has not proven the evidence was manipulated or
Case 3:24-cv-01278-TSH Document 166 Filed 11/13/25 Page 11 of 12

12
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
altered.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 13.
N. Motion In Limine No. 14
Floyd argues that the Court should exclude “[a]ll correspondence and requests for
cancellation concerning gym memberships before/after [Saber’s] membership” in Exhibit 2 on the
grounds that it is irrelevant, is improper character evidence, and is unfairly prejudicial. Mot. at
15:7–16:3. Saber contends that the evidence is relevant because “the correspondences directly
relate to the reason [Saber] terminated [Floyd’s] membership and [Floyd’s] alleged damages.”
Opp. at 8:6–14.
Here, as stated, any gym membership cancellations after the one at issue in this case are
relevant to Floyd’s damages. And again, the conduct leading up to those cancellations is not
relevant if Saber wasn’t aware of it at the time of its termination of his membership.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 14.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
Floyd’s Motions in Limine.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2025
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01278-TSH Document 166 Filed 11/13/25 Page 12 of 12