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

226-250 of 297 results

TYLER ASH VS. LIFETIME PRODUCTS, INC. ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Exclude Or Limit Testimony Of Defendants' Expert Allen D. Bott, M.D., Or In The Alternative, To Allow Lynn Ponton, M.D. To Tetify As Plaintiff'S Expert Psychiatrist Matter on Calendar for Friday, September 12, 2014, Line 14, PLAINTIFF TYLER ASH's Motion To Exclude Or Limit Testimony Of Defendants' Expert Allen D. Bott, M.D., Or In The Alternative, To Allow Lynn Ponton, M.D. To Tetify As Plaintiff'S Expert Psychiatrist OFF CALENDAR PER MOVING PARTIES REQUEST =(302/AJR)

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2014

TYLER ASH VS. LIFETIME PRODUCTS, INC. ET AL

S Motion To Exclude Plaintiff'S Expert Lynn E. Ponton Or In The Alternative To Continue The Trial Date The matter is on calendar for Friday, September 5, 2014, Line 16, DEFENDANT KZV ARMENIAN SCHOOL, INC.'S Joinder In Defendant Lifetime Products, Inc.'S Motion To Exclude Plaintiff'S Expert Lynn E. Ponton Or In The Alternative To Continue The Trial Date The matter is off calendar per the request of the moving party. =302/EHG

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2014

TYLER ASH VS. LIFETIME PRODUCTS, INC. ET AL

Motion And Motion To Exclude Plaintiff'S Expert Lynn E. Ponton Or In The Alternative To Continue The Trial Date The matter is on calendar for Friday, September 5, 2014, Line 16, DEFENDANT LIFETIME PRODUCTS, INC.'S Motion And Motion To Exclude Plaintiff'S Expert Lynn E. Ponton Or In The Alternative To Continue The Trial Date The matter is off calendar per the request of the moving party. =302/EHG

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2014

ROY POOLE VS. CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL FOUNDATION ET AL

The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Motion to exclude expert trial testimony of Leslie Zun, M.D. is in all respects granted. The plaintiff failed to comply with the express terms of the previous Order dated August 4, 2014 requiring Dr. Zun to be produced for an expert witness discovery deposition on or before a date certain. The Court accepts defendant's withdrawal of that portion of the motion to exclude the expert trial testimony by Dennis Bietz, R.N.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2014

  • Judge

    Steven Stein

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

THE TDS GROUP INC VS. THE IRA CENTER

Motion to Exclude Statements re Wicker's Good Character or Status as a Retired Air Force Colonel The motion is denied pursuant to Kelly v. New West (supra). 14. Motion to Exclude Allegations that TDS lost school districts due to change in fee model The motion is denied pursuant to Kelly v. New West (supra). Defendants' Motion to Bifurcate. Defendants seek to divide the trial into three phases. One would be a court trial on four legal issues.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2014

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

REBECCA OSBORNE VS. TODD FARM SERVICE

Tentative ruling for April 30, 2014 on Plaintiff's motion for relief from order granting motion to exclude expert witnesses GRANT Defendat Berrington custom's request for judicial notice. DENY Plaintiff's motion for relief from the court's prior order granting motion to exclude expert witnesses. The relief plaintiff seeks is not available under CCP § 473(b). (Gotschall v. Daley (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 479, 484.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2014

DEIDRENNE ASHCRAFT VS. ROE ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Exclude Witness Nichole West And To Exclude Evidence Of Pltf'S New Injury Claim Developed With Assistance Of Counsel After The Close Of Discovery And After Disclosure Of Expert Witnesses, Or In The Alternative, For An Order Allowing Defts To Conduct Discovery Of This New Evidence Only (**See Notes**) Matter on Calendar for Thursday, April 17, 2014, Line 1, PLAINTIFF DEIDRENNE ASHCRAFT'S Motion To Exclude Witness Nichole West And To Exclude Evidence Of Plaintiff's New Injury Claim Developed

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2014

  • Judge

    James Watson

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

REBECCA OSBORNE VS. TODD FARM SERVICE

s motion to exclude and/or strike plaintiff's supplemental expert witnesses, and Joinder of Gary Berrington and Phyllis Berrington. GRANT the motion. Plaintiff unreasonably failed to designate her experts pursuant to CCP § 2034.260. Having failed to comply with this section, she is not entitled to supplement pursuant to CCP § 2034.280.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2014

CHASTIDY RONAN ET AL VS. ANTONIOS PANAGIOTOPOULOS ET AL

Ntc Of Mtn To Exclude Experts For Failure To Make Available For Deposition And To Compel Production Of Vehicle For Examination Set for hearing on Thursday, March 6, 2014, Line 19, PLAINTIFFS CHASTIDY RONAN AND MATTHEW RONAN'S MOTION To Exclude Experts For Failure To Make Available For Deposition And To Compel Production Of Vehicle For Examination Off calendar per the moving party. =302/EG

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2014

JOHN H.A. DOE VS. LUIS ARMANDO VILLA GONZALEZ ET AL

S Motion To Exclude Plaintiff's Testimony As Evidentiary Sanction For Failure To Appear At Noticed Deposition Pro Tem Judge Nils Rosenquest, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge.

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2013

  • Judge

    Nils Rosenquest

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

JOHN H.A. DOE VS. LUIS ARMANDO VILLA GONZALEZ ET AL

Mtn To Exclude Pltf'S Testimony Set for hearing on Thursday, October 31, 2013, Line 4: Defendant LUIS GONZALEZ'S Motion To Exclude Plaintiff's Testimony Pro Tem Judge Nils Rosenquest, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge.

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2013

  • Judge

    Nils Rosenquest

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

MATTER OF JOHN A PATTON

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: to Exclude Evidence in Limine - #12 on the probate calendar

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2013

FRANCIS SEARS VS. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION

Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony from Dr. Strauchan The motion is denied. The request for sanctions is denied. Defendant seeks to exclude Dr. Strauchen's testimony because Dr. Strauchen failed to answer questions at deposition regarding the total income he earned from employment as a medical expert. Effectively, defendant seeks exclusion and monetary compensation as a discovery sanction.

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2013

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC V. SHERWOOD

Only if plaintiff fails to comply with that order will plaintiff be able to file a motion to exclude the evidence. (Ibid.) If defendant fails to make this showing, the motion will be denied. The parties are directed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2013

KATHERINE DAVIS VS. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP ET AL

Kiss And Gershwin Matter on calendar for Tuesday, April 9, 2013, Line 21, DEFENDANT CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST, DBA MERCY MEDICAL CENTER's motion to Exclude And/Or Strike Opinions And Evidence Of Drs. Kiss And Gershwin. The motion to exclude is treated as an evidentiary objection, which the Court does not reach because the declarations are not relevant to the Court's reasoning.

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2013

GAVIOTA HOLDINGS LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

Based on the foregoing, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of Mr. Arnold. The opposition sufficiently demonstrates that the failure to timely designate Mr. Arnold as an expert was the result of a mistake and was not unreasonable within the meaning of Section 2034.300.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2013

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY VS. MARTIN D. SOUZA

Therefore, any motion to exclude such testimony on the grounds that the testimony is not supported by sufficient evidence is untimely and should be rejected.") In light of the foregoing, Mr. Garland is precluded from presenting any "critique opinion" testimony at trial, absent a strong showing of substantial justification described above and prior leave of Court. 2. Examination of Appraiser on Prior Published Opinions. The motion is unopposed and is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2013

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC VS. BETTY DELEON

Notice Of Motion To Exclude Evidence Set for hearing on Wednesday, December 5, 2012, Line 1, DEFENDANT CARMY DELEON Notice Of Motion To Exclude Evidence, Pro Tem Judge William Shapiro, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2012

  • Judge

    William Shapiro

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT V. PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA, LLP, ET AL.

The trial court granted the attorneys’ motion to exclude all evidence of attorney- client discussions immediately preceding, and during, the mediation concerning mediation settlement strategies and the attorneys’ efforts to persuade the client to reach a settlement in the mediation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2012

SHELLY COBB AND NICHOLAS WHELAN

On 5/31 father filed his reply: reports that the motion was submitted to place the issue of his claim for fees before the Court so it can grant him his fees after hearing the evidence at the evidentiary hearing; mother does not need a private attorney for the hearing because DCSS is prosecuting the action; father simply wants to “try” the arrearages issue. 4) Father’s motion to exclude evidence filed on 5/7; to exclude all evidence produced by Bank of America in response to mother’s deposition subpoena to produce

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2012

CHARLES C. BOILLOD VS. CHRISTINA M. WENDEL PHD ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Exclude Pltf'S Expert Witnesses Set for hearing on Tuesday, May 15, 2012, Line 30, DEFENDANT WILLIAM QUICK Motion To Exclude Plaintiff'S Expert Witnesses. OFF CALENDAR. CASE SETTLED. =(302/HEK)

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2012

VALENTINO BUTTARAZZI VS RODNEY MEDINILLA

The Court granted defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s healthcare bills, in accordance with the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 567. The effect of that ruling precluded plaintiff from presenting evidence of his total hospitalization costs of approximately $50,000, and allowed only introduction of the amount accepted by the hospital through Medicare and plaintiff’s private insurance.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2012

GUILLERMO MENDEZ VS. KELLY CLEANING & SUPPLIES INC.

The court's tentative ruling is to: Grant the motion to exclude testimony without prejudice to plaintiffs' ability to file a motion to augment or amend their expert designation. (However, if defendants are willing to permit the designation provided they have an opportunity to depose plaintiffs' new expert and to designate their own, that might be a simpler approach.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2012

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CREDIT BUREAU OF SANTA MARIA VS SYLVIA VASQUEZ

Vasquez’s motion to exclude evidence was not timely served and the court orders it off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2011

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

LM COMBS CONSTRUCTION INC VS. SOUTHGATE RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT

Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions A. Plaintiff's motion to exclude defendant's employees and experts from offering expert testimony is granted. Plaintiff seeks to preclude defendant's employees and agents from offering expert opinion, because defendant did not disclose them as expert witnesses during the exchange of expert witness declarations. Defendant contends the witnesses are percipient experts, so it had no need to include the employees on an expert witness list. The contention lacks merit.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2011

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.