Here are the Novell Motions in Limine #s 12-19, asking the court to exclude certain testimony from William Broderick, Lawrence Bouffard, Ed Chatlos, Burt Levine, Kim Madsen, Ty Mattingly, R. Duff Thompson, Doug Michaels, Robert Frankenberg, and Jean Acheson.
Long-time readers will remember that this is the second time Novell has brought this up, but the first time around the block, Judge Dale Kimball didn't find the APA ambiguous, so no external testimony was required. Also, he ruled that "'extrinsic evidence is admissible only to supplement or explain the terms of the agreement--and even then, only where such evidence is consistent with the terms of the integrated document.' EPA Real Estate Partnership v. Kang, 12 Cal. App. 4th 171, 175-77 (1992)." Since SCO's witnesses contradicted the document, he found it inadmissable. Now, after the Court of Appeals remanded the case, we are back for a redo, so now their testimony is what the jury might be hearing. Novell argues that they lack personal knowledge of aspects of the APA and/or Amendment A, and so their testimony should be excluded or limited to just what they actually have personal knowledge of.
Here's where you can find the earlier Novell objections to witnesses' testimony and to exhibits and to experts. And here's Rule 602 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, referenced throughout, the rule about personal knowledge.
If you are curious, in Judge Kimball's order dated August 10, 2007 [PDF], he did mention the fact that these SCO witnesses seemed not to know much about the APA, in particular about Amendment A.

More...