Japan Bus Lines, LLC v. H.I.S. Guam, Inc.

Opinion

. L L- D wma COURT OF fsumn

far

2825 éU*~3 2025 AUG I I I IFM

FM3:3:OS

05

CL§§§Ei CLERK OFQ? COURT

CDURT

BY:__ BY= ---IJ.,,<,~---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

JAPAN BUS LINES, LLC, LLC, CIVIL CASE NO. CV0514-20 C1VIL

Plaintiff,

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING vs. vs. PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'S THIRD

THIRD MOTION

MOTION IN

LIMINE

H.I.S. GUAM, H.1.s. GUAM, INC.,

Defendants. efe da

This matter came came before

before the

theHonorable

Honorable John

JohnC.

C.Terlaje

Terlaje on

on August

August 11,

11,2025

2025on

onPlaintiff's

Plaintiff's

Third Motion in Limine, Motion 'up requesting that Liming, requesting that the the Court

Court prohibit

prohibit Defendant from introducing Exhibit

ofDefendant's 54 of Defendant's Amended Amended Exhibit

Exhibit list.

list. Parties

Parties met

met outside

outside the

the Court's

Court's presence,

presence, and

and

subsequently expressed subsequently expressedtheir theirarguments

argumentsbefore

beforethe

theCourt

Courtin

in advance the Jury

advance of the Jury Selection Selection

scheduled in this this case

case for August 11,

for August 11, 2025 at 9:00 9:00 a.m..

a.m.. Based

Based on

on the

the arguments

arguments from

from the

the parties

parties

and the and the relevant relevant law and authorities, law and authorities, the

the Court

Court now

now issues

issues the

the following decision and following decision and order

Plaintiff's Third GRANTING Plaintiff's Third Motion Motion in

in Limine.

Lirnine.

Plaintiff makes Plaintiff makes three three assertions

assertions as

as to why this

to why this exhibit

exhibit should

should not

not be

be admitted.

admitted. First,

First,

Plaintiffargues Plaintiff argues that that the Exhibit would "assume "assume the role of the

the Court" by

byinstructing the jury

instructing the jury on

to interpret how to interpret the the law. While

Whilethe

theCourt

Courtagrees

agreesthat

thatDefendant

Defendantcannot

cannotinstruct

instruct the jury as to the

proper interpretation proper interpretation of of the

the law, the Court

Court does not

not believe

believe that

that admitting

admitting the

the Exhibit

Exhibit would

would

necessarily be an instruction necessarily instructionon onthe

thelaw.

law.As

As Plaintiff acknowledges, the Plaintiff acknowledges, the Exhibit could could be

be used

used to

show what hat DDefendant believed ef endant bel i eved wwas as t the

he l law

aw atat t the

he t time.

i m e. PPlaintiff's

1a' m i next argument was as tthat the

CV0514-20 DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER

ORDER GRANTING

GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

PLAINTIFF'S THIRD

THIRD MOTION IN Page 2 Page

LIMINE

Exhibit was not admissible admissible because itit is is irrelevant.

irrelevant. The Court disagrees with this argument argument for

Defend ant's

similar reasons as above. Defend ant's state of of mind and understanding and erstand in of the law law which

which may

may have

affected by been affected bythe theinformation

informationinin this

this Exhibit

Exhibit is

is certainly relevant to the facts of of this

this case.

The Court finds finds Plaintiff's third argument-that Plaintiff's third the evidence argument-that the evidence should should be excluded under

GRERule 403-persuasive. GRE UnderGRE 403-persuasive. Under 403,relevant GRE 403, relevantevidence evidence"may

"maybe

beexcluded

excludedififits

its probative

value is substantially substantially outweighed by the the danger

danger of

of unfair prejudice, confusion of of the issues,

issues, or

misleading by considerations of undue delay, waste misleading the jury, or by waste of of time,

time, or

or needless

needless presentation

of cumulative evidence." of evidence." Although Although the

the Court

Court believes

believes the

theinformation

information contained

contained in

in this

this Exhibit

Exhibit

has probative value and is is relevant,

relevant, that

that probative

probative value

value is

is substantially

substantially outweighed

outweighed by the danger

of unfair prejudice, of prejudice, as well as as the

the risk

risk of the jury or ofmisleading the or causing them them to confuse

confuse the issues

in this in this case.

case. Because Becausethe

theinformation

informationcontained

containedininthis

thisExhibit

Exhibit does

doesnot

notconstitute

constitutelaw,

law, introducing

introducing

it in any context would risk risk misleading the jury as to the nature nature of the evidence. The jury should

not treat the Guam Visitors Visitors Bureau's FAQ statementasas an FAQ statement anauthoritative authoritative interpretation interpretation of the

Governor's executive Governor's executive order, and the Court Court believes that if

believes that if itit is is allowed

allowed to be

be introduced,

introduced, itit would

not be possible to to prevent

prevent the

the jury from

from considering

considering the

the information

information in

in that way. Furthermore, its

value isis limited

probative value limited given given that

that Defendant

Defendanthas

has other

other exhibits

exhibits Irit can introduce, including the

Governor's order Governor's order itself.

itself.

Defendant argues Defendant argues that the Exhibit Exhibit is

is admissible

admissible as

as an exception

exception to

to the

the hearsay

hearsay rule

mle under

GRE 803(8), which GRE803(8), which allows admission of of public records. However, However, admissibility

admissibility under

under the

the hearsay

rules does not override the Rule 403 considerations. Therefore, Therefore, Defendant's 803 argument Defendant's Rule 803 argument

is inadequate.

CV0514-20 DECISION AND ORDER DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

PLAINTIFF'S THIRD

THIRD MOTION IN Page 3 Page

LIMINE

Therefore, er efor e, based based on

on thee foregoing,

egoin g, the

th e Courtt hereby GRANTSththe er eby GRANTS Plaintiff's e Plain Third

tiff's Th ir

Motion in Liinine Limine and PROHIBITS

PROIDBITS Defend admitting Exhibit 54 as Defendant from admitting as its probative value

substantially outweighed by is substantially by the the danger

danger of

ofunfair

unfair prejudice

prejudice under

under GRE

G RE403

403.

so ORDERED SO _L½f_u___ ORDERED _ _A_'UDI/Lp D✓__71J_l_______,_20_2_5.

1 2025.

:.~.: --

.~- -:-;..: _:__~-· ,,.

6. I I e `

HO JQIIN CJTERLAJE Judge.,;, ,.S

_ Erl ' Court of Guam