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

276-297 of 297 results

CIFUENTES VS COSTCO

The motion to exclude evidence of Cifuentes’ “personal history” is obviously way too broad because it can include virtually anything and thus the motion as to “all personal history in general” is DENIED; but the motion as written is obviously directed at precluding evidence that Cifuentes “immigrated to this county from Guatemala because of a civil war;” and the “facts and circumstances of his immigration to the United States;” and that he “left in 1984.” Such testimony would not be part of his case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2010

LOTUS GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. VS. IMR CONTRACTORS CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Exclude Evidence (Ccp 454) Set for hearing on Monday, October 4, 2010, line 2. DEFENDANT IMR CONTRACTOR CORPORATION'S Motion To Exclude Evidence (C.C.P. 454) is denied. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2010

HINA'S TEA, ET AL VS. XXXX D. XXX, ET AL

Motion to exclude testimony of Gordon L'Estrange The motion is denied. The motion is denied because it is premature and there is no basis for exclusion as a sanction. 5. Motion to exclude written communications The motion is denied without prejudice. Defendant seeks to exclude two letters from the Department of Development Services on the grounds of hearsay and pursuant to Evidence Code section 352.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2010

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CAROLINE BARR-BROFELDT VS MILLER LAW. INC.. ET AL.

(c) Motion to exclude non-party witnesses Unopposed, the motion is granted. (d) Motion to exclude evidence of other lawsuits The motion is denied without prejudice. Defendants seek to exclude evidence of any prior lawsuits brought against defendants or evidence of other alleged dissatisfied clients. Defendants rely on Evidence Code sections 1101(a), 1104 and 352.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2010

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CALLANAN VS. CASTLE HILL RETIREMENT VILLAGE

The Court's tentative ruling ios as follows: There being good cause, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to exclude the opinion testimony of Edward Schneider, M.D. Defendant Castle Hill Retirement Village's supplemental designation of expert witness Edward Schneider, M.D. is timely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.280, subd. (a).) Plaintiff's initial expert Dr. Loren Lipson was retained to testify as to the standard of care for a residential living facility.

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2010

JAMES JONES VS. MICHAEL R DRUCKER MD

Jones; and Plaintiff's counter ("motion in limine") motion to exclude Dr. Sbordone from testifying at the trial. The Court finds there is good cause to extend the discovery cut-off for a defense mental examination of the Plaintiff James Jones; and orders the plaintiff to submit to a one-day mental examination (CCP §2032.310). The plaintiff's motion to exclude Dr. Sbordone from testifying at the trial is denied. 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

RICHARD E PARKEN ET AL VS KATHYLYNE A SMART-VASQUEZ

Motion to exclude comment on how plaintiffs will spend amount of any judgment The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 13. Motion to exclude reference to taxes The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 14. Motion to exclude reference to imminent peril doctrine The motion is denied without prejudice. This motion addresses whether the Court should instruct the jury on "imminent peril." The motion is premature.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

CHARLES H ROBERTS III. ETAL VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Motion to exclude argument that defendants are wealthy The motion is granted. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion. 6. Motion to limit expert testimony to that offered at deposition The motion is granted. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion. 7. Motion to exclude evidence of plaintiff Luella Vaughn's past, present or future loss of earnings The motion is granted. Defendants contend that evidence of Ms.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PAUL YETTITO VS. SUTTER HEALTH

Motion to exclude expert witnesses. The motion is granted. It is not opposed. Plaintiff contends defendant may not call expert witnesses because they did not participate in the exchange of expert witnesses and have disclosed no expert witnesses. The record so reflects. The motion is properly granted. 2. Motion to exclude Kaiser conflict of interest letter The motion is granted in part.

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2010

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CARLENE SCOTT ET AL VS. PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP ET AL

Motion to exclude reference to insurance The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 3. Motion to exclude reference to toxic mold The motion is denied. Defendants seek to exclude the use of the term toxic mold on the grounds lack of relevance and prejudice. (Ev. Code §§ 350 and 352) Defendants contend the issue of whether there was toxic mold is not relevant because no-one ever lived in the units and there is no claim for personal injury damage. Defendants contend use of the term will inflame the jury.

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2010

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROBERT BOYD VS. WESTECH INDUSTRIES INC

Defendant's #1 – Motion to Exclude Evidence of Claims of Overtime not previously disclosed in Plaintiffs' discovery – DENIED, there is no evidence of prejudice or surprise or that Defendant was unaware of the basis for Plaintiffs' claims. The argument appears to revolve around a concept that Plaintiffs evidence will be unsupported and lack foundation at the time of trial. That issue will be resolved at the time of trial without any prejudice to Defendant in a Court trial.

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2010

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CITY OF SACRAMENTO VS BRETT PATCHING ET AL

Motion to exclude witnesses The motion is granted. It is not opposed. Defendants' Motions in Limine 1. Motion to exclude reference to settlements The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 2 Motion to exclude reference to insurance coverage The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 3. Motion to exclude witnesses The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 4. Motion to exclude Chief Bassett from the courtroom when he is not testifying The motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

PATRICIA YASUI. ET AL VS. COMCAST CORPORATION. ET AL

Motion to exclude undesignated retained experts The motion is denied. The motion violates the principles for motions in limine set forth in Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659. It is denied for that reason. 6. Motion to exclude plaintiffs from introducing evidence of medical expenses without proper foundation The motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

WLODZIMIERS JAN LITWIN VS ENVETCH. INC.. ETAL

Motion to exclude evidence on plaintiff's first cause of action The motion is denied. Defendants seek to exclude all evidence in support of plaintiff's first cause of action for breach of contract because plaintiff did not have the ability to perform under the contract. Strictly speaking, this motion is not an in limine motion. (See Amtower v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2010

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JIM MACKLIN VS. AMERICRETE INC

Motion to exclude speculative testimony of non-experts The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 4. Motion to exclude evidence not previously disclosed in discovery The motion is granted, at least conceptually. It is not opposed. The application of the ruling will be discussed at the hearing. 5. Motion to exclude reference to settlements The motion is granted. It is not opposed. 6. Motion to exclude evidence that plaintiff did not hold a proper license The motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MAXINE EKSTROM VS. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Motion to exclude reference to Plaintiff's convictions and heroin addiction. Defendants do not oppose the motion as to Plaintiff's prior convictions, and it is therefore granted. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's request to characterize her prior addiction to heroin as an "opiate" addiction. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to require Defendants to refer to her addiction as an "opiate" addiction. 5. Motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Herbert Weissman, Ph.D.; or Preclude mention of Dr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 31, 2009

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THOMAS TREZONA VS. DOUGLAS W HILLIS

As a consequence defendant seeks a continuance of the trial date so that his motion to exclude Dr. Orisek can be heard in timely fashion prior to trial. Defendant argues that the status of this retained expert will have a material effect on the manner in which he will prepare for trial. As a consequence, defendant argues that this matter must be resolved in timely fashion. Plaintiff opposes any continuance, arguing that defendant has not asserted any recognized basis for a continuance.

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2009

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

THOMAS TREZONA VS. DOUGLAS W HILLIS

As a consequence defendant seeks a continuance of the trial date so that his motion to exclude Dr. Orisek can be heard in timely fashion prior to trial. Defendant argues that the status of this retained expert will have a material effect on the manner in which he will prepare for trial. As a consequence, defendant argues that this matter must be resolved in timely fashion. Plaintiff opposes any continuance, arguing that defendant has not asserted any recognized basis for a continuance.

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2009

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MICHAEL K. ROBERTSON VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Exclude Plaintiffs Expert Witness Charles Ay'S Opinions As Evidence SET FOR HEARING ON FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 2008 LINE 5. DEFENDANT NIBCO INC.'S Motion To Exclude Plaintiffs Expert Witness Charles Ay'S Opinions As Evidence IS OFF CALENDAR, DISCOVERY MOTION PER SAN FRANCISCO LOCAL RULE 10(A)(1)(A). PLEASE CALL AND CALENDAR IN DISCOVERY DEPARTMENT. =(302/CK)

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2008

NOEL HARTFORD ET AL VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Exclude Deposition Testimony Of Noel Hartford; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Robert G. Engel Set For Hearing On Friday, January 5, 2007, Line 3. DEFENDANT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY Motion To Exclude Deposition Testimony Of Noel Hartford IS GRANTED EXCLUDING HARTFORD'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY. =(302/REQ/AP)

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2007

ADCO CONSTRUCTION DEFECT

s Motion to Exclude Cary P. Mack as an Expert or to Augment Cell Crete?s Expert Witness List The Motion is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2005

VALIQUET VS GRIDLEY

MOTION To Exclude Expert Witness Robert Sheppard O/C, DISCOVERY MATTER. PLEASE CALL AND CALENDAR IN PROPER DEPARTMENT.

  • Hearing

    Apr 02, 2002

  « first    1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.