What is a Motion in Limine to Exclude?

There have been court rulings specifying when a motion "to exclude" is at issue. e.g.,

  • In Easterby v. Clark (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 772, the Second District Court of Appeal discussed the issue of when exclusion is appropriate under the reasoning of Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557; Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907 and Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal.4th 140. A party’s expert may not offer testimony at trial that exceeds the scope of his deposition testimony if the opposing party has no notice or expectation that the expert will offer the new testimony, or if notice of the new testimony comes at a time when deposing the expert is unreasonably difficult. Id. at 781.
  • Exclusion of evidence at trial for discovery violations is a drastic sanction. It requires evidence of willful abuse of the discovery process and substantial prejudice. See Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.
  • The evidence is admissible to impeach the testimony of a witness who testifies that the condition was not dangerous. Love v. Wolf (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 822, 831.

The motion to exclude is applicable to many kinds of evidence. For example, motions to exclude:

  • witnesses; Evidence Code, §§ 350, 352, 702
  • police report and opinions of investigating officer; Vehicle Code, § 20013; Evidence Code, § 805
  • expert opinions not offered at deposition; Kennemur v. Jones (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907; Jones v. Moore (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 557, 565.
  • evidence of expert’s testing of tile; Pullin v. Super. Ct. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1165
  • irrelevant evidence; Evidence Code, §§ 350, 352
  • prior alcohol/drug use; Evidence Code, § 787
  • testimony regarding amount of reasonable medical charges; Code of Civ. Proc., § 2034.300
  • evidence of economic damages
  • worker’s compensation evidence
  • anecdotal evidence
  • undesignated retained experts
  • evidence not previously disclosed in discovery
  • golden rule arguments
  • videotape of deposition
  • reference to settlements
  • documents not produced

Useful Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude

Recent Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude

"PROTECTION OF THE HOLY VIRGIN,", ET AL. VS OUR CHURCH BUILDING, INC., A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT RELIGIOUS CORPORATION

Relevant to a motion to exclude evidence is OCB’s response or lack thereof to the Church’s discovery and the affect it has on the Church, such as depriving the Church of the opportunity of preparation or causing unfair surprise at trial. (Thoren v. Johnston & Washer, supra, 29 Cal.App.3d at 274.) Presumably, OCB propounded its discovery to show that the Church was not affected because the Church already had the amended bylaws that it sought.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

EGAL SHAHBAZ VS SAB INVESTMENT PROPERTY, LLC, ET AL.

MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AT TRIAL (Cal. Evid. Code § 402, 701, 702) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant SAB Investment Property, LLC’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Testimony at Trial is DENIED. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Egal Shahbaz (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for discrimination on the basis of disability against Defendant SAB Investment Property, LLC (“Defendant”) on October 30, 2018. Defendant filed the instant Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Testimony at Trial on May 22, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRANKLIN V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

(Ford filed a third motion to exclude evidence but has since filed a Notice of Withdrawal of that motion. Thus, the motion to exclude was dropped.) As to the Motion to Seal, Plaintiff opposes on the grounds the motion is untimely under Rule of Court 2.551(b)(3) and the Court lacks discretion to consider an untimely motion.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Judge

    Jennifer V

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

EMANUEL AFRAHMIAN VS KOUSHA BEROKIM

Consequently, a motion to exclude expert testimony is premature given the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2034.610 & 2034.710. Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice. Conclusion Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Defendant from offering expert witness testimony is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

GRANVILLE H. MARSHALL, M.D. VS MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The ALJ dismissed Marshall’s motion to exclude Fosmire’s medical records, strike Olson’s testimony, and dismiss the first three causes of discipline. The ALJ decided that Marshall did not have standing to assert Fosmire’s privacy rights and alternatively did not establish that Fosmire’s privacy rights were violated. AR 2128-27. On the standing issue, the ALJ cited the California Supreme Court case of Lewis v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC VS. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-SANTA ANA REGION

1) Petitioners' Motion and Memorandum to Exclude Four Supplemental Administrative Record Documents, or in the Alternative, Request for Limited 1/2 Day Deposition of Nick Amini of Regional Board and Request for Record Subpoena 2) Status Conference MOTION TO EXCLUDE DOCUMENTS Petitioners Edwards Lifesciences LLC and Baxter International, Inc. move to exclude documents from the administrative record.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

PARS PUBLISHING CORP VS. ORDWAY CORP

As such, the Court will take the matter (ROA 654) off calendar. (2) Motion to Exclude Evidence, or, in the Alternative, to Compel Plaintiff’s Compliance with the Demand for Inspection of Documents is denied. The inspection demand appears untimely when made. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.030, subd. (c)(2), 2016.050, 1013, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

VENEGAS VS. KUPU

Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony filed by Defendant Kalisitiane Langi Kupu OFF CALENDAR. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL FILED 07/15/2020. Future Hearings: No future hearings

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

K S ET AL VS JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER LONG BEACH AND WES

ORDER RE CONTINUANCE Due to governmental declarations of a state of emergency, the hearing on the motion to exclude non-disclosed evidence is continued to April 21, 2020 at 1:30 pm. The final status conference set for April 1, 2020 and trial set for April 15, 2020 are vacated. A trial setting conference is set for May 14, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. Moving party is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2020

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES V. MACKAY

“The granting or denying of a motion to secure a supplemental bill of particulars and a motion to exclude evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court. (Glogau v. Hagan, 107 Cal.App.2d 313, 321, 237 P.2d 329; Silva v. Bair, 141 Cal. 599, 602, 75 P. 162; McCarthy v. Mt. Tecarte Land & Water Co., supra, 110 Cal. 687, 693, 43 P. 391.)” (Meredith v. Marks (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 265, 270.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

JIMMY GARCIA VS PHONG TRAN ET AL

Conclusion and Order Defendants’ motion to exclude Plaintiff’s newly designated expert witnesses is granted. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: March 5, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

KATHY PAULINE MORRIS VS HAKOB BABAJANYAN ET AL

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendants’ motion to exclude Dr. Gross as a witness at trial is denied. Defendants’ request for sanctions is denied. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: February 21, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

TRIPPS AUTO V. CITY OF GRASS VALLEY 2-21-20

First, Defendant City files the present motion to exclude evidence of lost goodwill because it was not raised in the Answer to the City's condemnation complaint. However, the present action proceeding to trial is Plaintiffs' complaint for inverse condemnation, which clearly sets forth goodwill damages. Further, as goodwill damages are permitted under CCP '1263.510(a), the Court denies the request to exclude goodwill damages on this bases.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

  • Judge

    Dept. 6

  • County

    Nevada County, CA

CRAIG VS ARNO

Defendant's request that Plaintiff not be allowed to testify at trial is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; however, if Plaintiff fails to comply with the Court's order directing him to appear at a deposition within twenty (20) days, Defendant may renew the Motion to exclude Plaintiff from testifying at trial. Plaintiff's failure to appear at a deposition and produce the requested documents was without substantial justification.

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CRAIG VS ARNO

Defendant's request that Plaintiff not be allowed to testify at trial is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; however, if Plaintiff fails to comply with the Court's order directing him to appear at a deposition within twenty (20) days, Defendant may renew the Motion to exclude Plaintiff from testifying at trial. Plaintiff's failure to appear at a deposition and produce the requested documents was without substantial justification.

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GAMO VS. J STAR AUTO GROUP

The Court will hear from the parties as to their availability and set hearing dates for Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert and Defendants’ Motion to Summary Judgment/Adjudication. Defendants to give notice. (3) Motion for Leave to Withdraw Plaintiff’s Responses to J Star Auto Group, Inc.’s Request for Admissions by Plaintiff Tirso Gamo is CONTINUED to _____ 2020, Dept. C11, at 2 pm.

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

MOUNTAIN VIEW MOBILE MANOR V. SIMMONS

Defense counsel declared that when she contacted plaintiff’s counsel to inquire about an opposition to defendant’s motion to exclude evidence about the seven day notice to perform or quit, she was advised on November 14, 2019 that plaintiff had dismissed the action; plaintiff’s counsel did not send her a copy of the request for dismissal, but counsel said he would send a conformed copy when he got it back from court. (Initial Declaration of Defense Counsel in Support of Motion, paragraph 5.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

EDUARDO RAMIREZ VS GLOVA LINK CORPORATION ET AL

TENTATIVE RULINGS ON PLAINTIFF’S IN LIMINE MOTIONS Plaintiff’s No. 2 – Motion To exclude Evidence of Gambling or Tax Returns Allow use of tax returns redacted to exclude all evidence of income other than plaintiff’s earnings from driving. Other income sources are not relevant. Mention of gambling is irrelevant and prejudicial. Plaintiff’s No. 4 – Motion to exclude Expert Opinion of Fatzinger Hearing required. No Opposition was filed.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

MELANIE SALINAS VS DR WILLIAM CATON III

CONCLUSION AND ORDER The Court grants Defendants’ motion to exclude Michael Dogali, M.D., Fred Kyt, M.D., and Karen Luckett from testifying at trial. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: January 10, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ROBERT VARTZAR ET AL VS NEW STAR REALTY INC

NAM’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’ EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY DEFENDANTS NEW STAR REALTY, INC. AND JENNY S. NAM’S MOTION TO COMPEL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION AT DEPOSITION Factual Background This is a negligence action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHANNON COLHOUN VS LOU CHAR FULLER PROPERTY LLC ET AL

Tentative rulings rate: motions in limine Plaintiffs motion to: Exclude unrelated medical conditions: grant in part, gynecological treatment will not be admitted, some evidence of psychological treatment may be admitted. 4. Admit evidence of changes to pool: deny 7. Exclude testimony of Morse: deny 8. Exclude evidence that was subject of subpoena quashed by court: deny 9. Exclude testimony of Albert Stone: deny 11. Exclude testimony regarding additional testing by Loud: deny 12.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2020

KATHY PAULINE MORRIS VS HAKOB BABAJANYAN ET AL

.: BC665885 Hearing Date: December 11, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Motion to exclude plaintiff’s Designated Expert Defendants Hakob Babajanyan and TLA Limousine, Inc. (“Defendants”) move to preclude Plaintiff Kathy Pauline Morris (“Plaintiff”) from calling her expert Hyman Gross, M.D. (“Gross”) as a witness at trial. Trial is set for March 3, 2019. Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to the date of the final status conference: February 14, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

BONNIE SMITH VS. FOLSOM READY MIX INC

The motion to exclude is denied as to driving convictions that occurred before the date Mr. Turner was hired. b. The motion is granted as to any evidence of arrests without convictions. The evidence is not relevant as it does not relate to driving ability. The admission of such evidence also could arguably be viewed as being against public policy as the threat of having to refute such evidence would encourage potential employers to simply avoid any risk by not hiring a person with a prior conviction.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ELIZABETH GOSALVEZ VS SANDRA W KILEY ET AL

Notably, Staub was decided in connection with a motion to exclude, not a motion for leave to make a late designation. However, the motion to exclude was made on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to make a timely designation (the plaintiff’s designation was due on 12/27/11, but was made on 1/09/12). Thus, the analysis appears to be applicable to this case.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2019

NAYSHTUT VS. COMERCIALIZADORA TRAVEL ADVISORY S A DE C V

Defendant Concord Servicing Corporation's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Designated Medical Experts or Medical Evidence is GRANTED. (ROA 458.) Expert testimony regarding Plaintiff's medical condition is not relevant to any of Plaintiff' causes of action in this case. Defendant's motion is a motion in limine. "Unless otherwise directed by the court, counsel must file and serve motions in limine and opposition thereto five court days and two court days respectively prior to trial call."

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.