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

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

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DIAZ-SIDBURY V. STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AUXILIARY

However, it is not necessary to strike the supplemental 10 declaration. 11 Defendant’s motion to exclude and/or strike the supplemental declaration is DENIED. 12 B.

  • Hearing

HARRIS VS. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC

Plaintiff's motion to exclude defense expert witness Scott Foreman, M.D. is moot. The hotel defendants have de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 140. Also, defendant Monshian Corporation has de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 143.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HARRIS VS. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC

Plaintiff's motion to exclude defense expert witness Scott Foreman, M.D. is moot. The hotel defendants have de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 140. Also, defendant Monshian Corporation has de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 143.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HARRIS VS. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC

Plaintiff's motion to exclude defense expert witness Scott Foreman, M.D. is moot. The hotel defendants have de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 140. Also, defendant Monshian Corporation has de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 143.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HARRIS VS. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC

Plaintiff's motion to exclude defense expert witness Scott Foreman, M.D. is moot. The hotel defendants have de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 140. Also, defendant Monshian Corporation has de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 143.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HARRIS VS. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC

Plaintiff's motion to exclude defense expert witness Scott Foreman, M.D. is moot. The hotel defendants have de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 140. Also, defendant Monshian Corporation has de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 143.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HARRIS VS. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC

Plaintiff's motion to exclude defense expert witness Scott Foreman, M.D. is moot. The hotel defendants have de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 140. Also, defendant Monshian Corporation has de-designated Dr. Foreman. See ROA 143.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KAVIA VS CUMBUSTION ASSOCIATES INC

Analysis: A motion to exclude all evidence on the ground that the defendants are not entitled to a trial is in substance and effect a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, which requires far more than the 17 court days of notice afforded in this instance. Even if the motion could be properly brought as a motion in limine, as it is entitled, it would be premature. Motions in limine are to be filed on the day of trial, not months before. (RSC Local Rule 3401.)

  • Hearing

900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, LLC VS RAMIN FARZAM

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence concerning the Estoppel Certificate is DENIED. IV.

  • Hearing

MIKE MURPHY ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. FINELINE INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.

This amount is calculated by adding the time counsel spent at trial on May 22, 2019 and May 23, 2019 (based on the reporter’s notes in the Court’s file) and the time counsel spent dealing directly with the motion to exclude Mr. Thompson’s report on those days – which amounts to $8,197.50.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • County

    Merced County, CA

JAZMIN MERCADO VS JEANETTE IRENE HJELM

Further, the matter can be addressed via a trial motion to exclude videos not produced during discovery and withheld on attorney work product grounds. Therefore, the motion is DENIED. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

  • Hearing

BAILEY VS. BAIRES

(1) Motion to Exclude Plaintiff from Presenting Undesignated Expert Witnesses at Trial (2) Motion to Augment Expert Witness List Tentative Ruling: (1) Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiff from Presenting Evidence at Trial from Undesignated Expert Witnesses: Defendants, Best Overnite Express, Inc. and Jorge Alberto Baires’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiff from Presenting Evidence at Trial from Undesignated Expert Witnesses is DENIED. The Court finds the reasoning in Hirano v.

  • Hearing

NICOLE NAGEL, ET AL. V. TRACY A. WESTEN, ET AL.

This interpretation finds support in Ladas: “the present case was dismissed before trial following the trial court’s granting of defendant’s motion to exclude all evidence plaintiffs proffered to prove their claims, the items should have been disallowed in their entirety. Ladas, 19 Cal.App.4th at 764. (The circumstance in Ladas is very similar to the circumstances of this case where the case was dismissed after the court’s ruling on jury instructions on the eve of trial.) The court will tax $27,839.08.

  • Hearing

IAHLDHFAPIMP PAP LLC VS. ELIZABETH NOLL

Plaintiff IAHLDHFAPIMP_PAP, LLC's Motion to Exclude Evidence that Defendant Failed to Produce or Disclose During Discovery is denied. Plaintiff has not met its burden under CCP § 2023.030. Defendant's request for sanctions is denied.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

IAHLDHFAPIMP PAP LLC VS. ELIZABETH NOLL

Plaintiff IAHLDHFAPIMP_PAP, LLC's Motion to Exclude Evidence that Defendant Failed to Produce or Disclose During Discovery is denied. Plaintiff has not met its burden under CCP § 2023.030. Defendant's request for sanctions is denied.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES JCCP 4924 DEPT 10 - JULY 26, 2019 TENTATIVE RULING RE: FORD'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL and MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUME FROM PLAINTIFFS RELATED TO FORD'S ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ITS SONG BEVERLY OBLIGATIONS _____________________________________________ The parties are ordered to appear on Defendant Ford Motor Company's motion to continue trial and motion to exclude any argument from Plaintiffs related to Ford's alleged non-compliance

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CATRENA BROWN-THOMAS VS. ANGELA GLORIOSO [IAMGED]

Plaintiffs' motion to exclude evidence of plaintiff Catrena Brown-Thomas' prior arrests and convictions is a motion in limine that the Court has elected to hear in advance of the trial to assist the parties in their trial preparation. Based on the information currently available to the Court, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude evidence of Catrena Brown-Thomas' prior arrests and convictions under Evidence Code section 352.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES JCCP 4924 DEPT 10 - JULY 26, 2019 TENTATIVE RULING RE: FORD'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL and MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUME FROM PLAINTIFFS RELATED TO FORD'S ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ITS SONG BEVERLY OBLIGATIONS _____________________________________________ The parties are ordered to appear on Defendant Ford Motor Company's motion to continue trial and motion to exclude any argument from Plaintiffs related to Ford's alleged non-compliance

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES JCCP 4924 DEPT 10 - JULY 26, 2019 TENTATIVE RULING RE: FORD'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL and MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUME FROM PLAINTIFFS RELATED TO FORD'S ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ITS SONG BEVERLY OBLIGATIONS _____________________________________________ The parties are ordered to appear on Defendant Ford Motor Company's motion to continue trial and motion to exclude any argument from Plaintiffs related to Ford's alleged non-compliance

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES JCCP 4924 DEPT 10 - JULY 26, 2019 TENTATIVE RULING RE: FORD'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL and MOTION TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUME FROM PLAINTIFFS RELATED TO FORD'S ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ITS SONG BEVERLY OBLIGATIONS _____________________________________________ The parties are ordered to appear on Defendant Ford Motor Company's motion to continue trial and motion to exclude any argument from Plaintiffs related to Ford's alleged non-compliance

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CAROLYN PEARSON VS JOHN CHON YOUNG KIM ET AL

Motion to Exclude Because the motion to supplement or augment is denied, the motion to exclude is granted. Richaud, supra, at 85. Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice. Temporary Scheduling Change: 1. Parties who wish to be heard on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] confirming possible changes in the date and time of the hearing; 2.

  • Hearing

PHAM VS WILSON

The motion to exclude defendants’ biomechanical expert is granted. Both sides could have designated a biomedical expert in a timely fashion but failed to do so. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Hearing

  « first    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.