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 Resources for Motion in Limine – Exclude

Rulings on Motion in Limine – Exclude

226-250 of 302 results

SONJA OEHLER VS THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Discussion MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Defendant moves to exclude evidence of Oehler’s alleged emotional distress. “Whatever its measure in a given case, it is fundamental that “damages which are speculative, remote, imaginary, contingent, or merely possible cannot serve as a legal basis for recovery.” (Piscitelli v. Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 989.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SEGERSTROM VS. YERGOVICH

Wikstrom will not be excluded from testifying at this time. (2) Defendants' Motion for Motion for a Protective Order, Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and/or for an Order to Comply with Discovery Statutes is GRANTED, in part. The issue of the deposition of Russ Johnson has been resolved as the parties have agreed to a deposition on August 20, 2018 in Irvine, California. The issue as to Mr. Wikstrom is resolved by the ruling above.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEGERSTROM VS. YERGOVICH

Wikstrom will not be excluded from testifying at this time. (2) Defendants' Motion for Motion for a Protective Order, Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and/or for an Order to Comply with Discovery Statutes is GRANTED, in part. The issue of the deposition of Russ Johnson has been resolved as the parties have agreed to a deposition on August 20, 2018 in Irvine, California. The issue as to Mr. Wikstrom is resolved by the ruling above.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEGERSTROM VS. YERGOVICH

Wikstrom will not be excluded from testifying at this time. (2) Defendants' Motion for Motion for a Protective Order, Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and/or for an Order to Comply with Discovery Statutes is GRANTED, in part. The issue of the deposition of Russ Johnson has been resolved as the parties have agreed to a deposition on August 20, 2018 in Irvine, California. The issue as to Mr. Wikstrom is resolved by the ruling above.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEGERSTROM VS. YERGOVICH

Wikstrom will not be excluded from testifying at this time. (2) Defendants' Motion for Motion for a Protective Order, Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and/or for an Order to Comply with Discovery Statutes is GRANTED, in part. The issue of the deposition of Russ Johnson has been resolved as the parties have agreed to a deposition on August 20, 2018 in Irvine, California. The issue as to Mr. Wikstrom is resolved by the ruling above.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEGERSTROM VS. YERGOVICH

Wikstrom will not be excluded from testifying at this time. (2) Defendants' Motion for Motion for a Protective Order, Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and/or for an Order to Comply with Discovery Statutes is GRANTED, in part. The issue of the deposition of Russ Johnson has been resolved as the parties have agreed to a deposition on August 20, 2018 in Irvine, California. The issue as to Mr. Wikstrom is resolved by the ruling above.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SEGERSTROM VS. YERGOVICH

Wikstrom will not be excluded from testifying at this time. (2) Defendants' Motion for Motion for a Protective Order, Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and/or for an Order to Comply with Discovery Statutes is GRANTED, in part. The issue of the deposition of Russ Johnson has been resolved as the parties have agreed to a deposition on August 20, 2018 in Irvine, California. The issue as to Mr. Wikstrom is resolved by the ruling above.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARCY KRINSK VS. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION [E-FILE]

Elizabeth Howlett, is inadmissible; however, as stated within the concurrent ruling, Defendants' Motion to exclude Dr. Howlett's testimony and opinions has been DENIED; therefore, at this time, Dr. Howlett's testimony and opinions are generally admissible. Regarding the claim for restitution, Business & Professions Code section 17203 is confined to restoration of any interest in "money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition."

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARCY KRINSK VS. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION [E-FILE]

Elizabeth Howlett, is inadmissible; however, as stated within the concurrent ruling, Defendants' Motion to exclude Dr. Howlett's testimony and opinions has been DENIED; therefore, at this time, Dr. Howlett's testimony and opinions are generally admissible. Regarding the claim for restitution, Business & Professions Code section 17203 is confined to restoration of any interest in "money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition."

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARCY KRINSK VS. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION [E-FILE]

Elizabeth Howlett, is inadmissible; however, as stated within the concurrent ruling, Defendants' Motion to exclude Dr. Howlett's testimony and opinions has been DENIED; therefore, at this time, Dr. Howlett's testimony and opinions are generally admissible. Regarding the claim for restitution, Business & Professions Code section 17203 is confined to restoration of any interest in "money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition."

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROBERT RIEDE VS FRANK AGUILING ET AL

Although plaintiff opposed defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of insurance, the parties eventually stipulated pretrial to exclude evidence of insurance. During trial defendants Aguiling and Marasign mentioned their lack of insurance to the jury. Further, plaintiff seeks a new trial on (additure) the inadequate damages against Marasign particularly for pain and suffering. The evidence of paid medical bills was $2,050.00 but the jury awarded $1,800.00 as economic damages.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DOUGLAS A BAGBY VS 1716 MAIN STREET LLC ET AL

Motion To Exclude Prior Verdict The court considered the moving, opposing papers, and reply papers. BACKGROUND On March 30, 2016, plaintiff Douglas A. Bagby (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendants 1716 Main Street, LLC and Oceanside Health Center, Inc. (“Defendants”) alleging premises liability for a slip and fall that occurred on April 8, 2014. Trial is set for May 14, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2019

HUMBERTO DELGADO MARTINEZ VS LUIS ANGEL ALONSO ET AL

These are arguments to make in a trial motion to exclude the expert’s testimony as prejudicial, irrelevant, and duplicative. However, based Defendant’s deposition testimony and the deposition testimony of Officer Voorhees, whether Defendant was intoxicated at the time of the accident is disputed. Therefore, there is good cause for Plaintiff to designate a forensic toxicologist. The Motion to augment the expert witness designation to add forensic toxicologist is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DOUGLAS A BAGBY VS 1716 MAIN STREET LLC ET AL

Motion To Exclude Prior Verdict The court considered the moving, opposing papers, and reply papers. BACKGROUND On March 30, 2016, plaintiff Douglas A. Bagby (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendants 1716 Main Street, LLC and Oceanside Health Center, Inc. (“Defendants”) alleging premises liability for a slip and fall that occurred on April 8, 2014. Trial is set for May 14, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2019

REDDY V. IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Plaintiff offers no facts to cure the defect, and as such the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend, but without prejudice to any later motion for leave to amend should the facts/circumstances so warrant. 6) Defendant’s Motion to Exclude E-Mails Defendant moves to strike from the operative pleading Para 28-30 which relate to post-incident communications plaintiffs had with the principal of the school regarding remediation. Defendants contends that such averments are barred by Evidence Code §1151.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2016

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

RAMIREZ V. HILLCREST TRAVEL PLAZA ET AL.

Prior to trial of the bad faith action, the trial court granted the insured's motion to exclude evidence of the insurer's defense of advice of counsel, on the ground that it was new matter that should have been affirmatively alleged in the answer. The Insurer sought a writ. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the Plaintiff’s Petition for a writ and issued mandamus directing the trial judge to permit introduction of the evidence.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2018

MARY MEEKS RITTER VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

On July 3, 2018, Defendant moved ex parte to specially-set the hearing on his motion to exclude evidence of psychiatric or psychologic injuries or to reopen discovery for a second deposition of Plaintiff and to augment expert witness list. On August 31, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s motion, finding there was no good cause to reopen discovery for a second deposition of Plaintiff and expert augmentation as to a neuropsychiatrist, because Defendant was not diligent in that Defense counsel subpoenaed Dr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2018

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ERIC S BARTON ET AL VS RODNEY R RICE III ET AL

Bank of America’s Motion in Limine Number 1 is GRANTED, including the motion to exclude the testimony of Leonard Matheson to the extent such testimony addresses the issues excluded by this order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

MARY MEEKS RITTER VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

On July 3, 2018, Defendant moved ex parte to specially-set the hearing on his motion to exclude evidence of psychiatric or psychologic injuries or to reopen discovery for a second deposition of Plaintiff and to augment expert witness list. On August 31, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s motion, finding there was no good cause to reopen discovery for a second deposition of Plaintiff and expert augmentation as to a neuropsychiatrist, because Defendant was not diligent in that Defense counsel subpoenaed Dr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2018

MARY MEEKS RITTER VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

On July 3, 2018, Defendant moved ex parte to specially-set the hearing on his motion to exclude evidence of psychiatric or psychologic injuries or to reopen discovery for a second deposition of Plaintiff and to augment expert witness list. On August 31, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s motion, finding there was not good cause to reopen discovery for a second deposition of Plaintiff and expert augmentation as to a neuropsychiatrist, because Defendant was not diligent—defense counsel subpoenaed Dr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2018

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ZHAOSHENG CHEN VS BAM BROKERAGE, INC.

“A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence unless: (a) there appears of record an objection to or a motion to exclude or strike the evidence that was timely made and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of the objection or motion; and (b) The court which passes upon the effect of the error or errors is of the opinion that the admitted evidence should have been excluded on the ground stated

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ETAN MILLER VS JOLANTA WALTER

Accordingly, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motion to exclude the photographs, the estimates of property damage, and the cost of repairs because they are relevant to issue causation of plaintiff’s claimed injuries.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

EBERHARD V. SULLIVAN

Motion to Disqualify Expert Alan Wallace Plaintiff Karin Eberhard’s motion to exclude defense expert Alan Wallace is DENIED. Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Koenig, has demonstrated that (1) it reasonably expected confidentiality in his conversation with Mr. Wallace and (2) confidential information materially relevant to this litigation was in fact disclosed. (Koenig Decl. at ¶¶ 4, and 6 - 9; see Western Digital Corp. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1481-1482; Shadow Traffic Network v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2017

SPENCE VS THE CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

(AR109-110) The collateral estoppel doctrine was not the only reason for denying petitioner's motion to exclude Warden Hernandez's testimony. The motion was not timely and had been waived in the prior adverse action. Petitioner's policy consideration argument is without merit. The ALJ considered the facts petitioner raises. The ALJ did not believe petitioner did not remember that he had been told "by anyone" not borrow money from subordinates.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.