The court denied defendants' motion for a new damages trial despite defendants' argument that the court's four-hour time limit to present evidence was insufficient. "Defendants claim that the Court’s 'rigid' four-hour time limit deprived them of a fair trial. . . . The jury trial phase of this case related to a single issue — damages. It is unclear why Defendants would have needed more than 4 hours to present their case or what other evidence they would have presented with more time. . . . The Court would have entertained a request for more time, had the parties demonstrated effective and efficient use of the time already given and a need for additional time."
Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., et. al., 2-10-cv-07416 (CACD April 2, 2012, Order) (Klausner, J.)